LUCIAN BLAGA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF BRITISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES

A Short History of

Anglo-American Literary Criticism

Third Edition

by

Ana-Karina Schn i! r

Sibiu 2012

A Short History of Anglo-American Literary Criticism Ana-Karina Schneider

Lucian Blaga University Press, Sibiu, 2012

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei SCHNEIDER, ANA-KARINA A Short history o An!lo-American criticism / Schneider Ana-Karina. !d. a "-a, rev. Sibiu # !ditura Universit$%ii &Lucian Blaga' din Sibiu, 2012 Bibli(gr. )SB* +,--+,"-,"+-.,/-0 -21.111.0+00,..-1 821.111(73).09(075.8) 82.09(075.8)

"

Table of Contents
Foreword 5 8 8

Part One Se!en Lect"res

Lecture I: Introductory Definitions W !t "ritics Do #!$$in% out t e &erritory Lecture II: 'recursors & e '(!tonic Di(e))! & e *ristote(i!n So(ution +t er ,ie-s Lecture III: & e .u)!nist .erit!%e & e 0en!iss!nce & e 0estor!tion & e 1n(i% ten)ent Lecture I,: & e 2ineteent "entury & e 0o)!ntics & e ,ictori!ns & e *)eric!n Scene Lecture ,: & e 1!r(y &-entiet "entury Liber!( .u)!nis) 'r!ctic!( "riticis) 2e- "riticis) +t er 4or)!(is)s Lecture ,I: & e Second .!(f of t e &-entiet "entury Structur!(is) 'oststructur!(is)(s) Lecture ,II: "oro((!ry: & e Lessons of 'ost)odernis) & e *%e of 5'ost67s 'ost)odernis) !nd Its Discontents & e &!)in% of & eory 2otes

17

2/

/3

38

8/

103

120 123 123 133 1/2

Part Two Three #ssays

& e 0eturn to .istory & e 0eturn to8 of t e 9nconscious & e 0eturn to t e &e:t

2otes $ibliogra%hy A%%endi& A Co"rse 'escri%tion A%%endi& $ Syno%sis and #&amination (e)"irements A%%endi& C Class Hando"ts

153 155 132 133 170

Foreword
According to Peter Barry, literary criticism has been a brief window of about 50 years in the twentieth century (roughly 1 !0"#0$, interru%ting a tradition of critical theory which had started with Aristotles Poetics& (!00'( # $) A history of criticism, is then, ine*itably, also a history of literary theory+ it is, moreo*er, a history of culture, ha*ing subtle yet manifest concatenations in art, %hiloso%hy, religion, education, economy, and %olitics) Additionally, Anglo"American criticism in fact originates in some of the ethical dilemmas of the ,ree- anti.uity) /hat follows here is a concise history of critical ideas, from Plato and Aristotle to the early twenty"first century, in two %arts) 0he first, com%rising lecture notes, ma-es no great claims to originality as it is hea*ily indebted to historians of criticism such as 1a*id 1aiches, 2arry Blamires, 1a*id 3ichter, Peter Barry, the editors and authors of the Norton Anthologies and the New Pelican Guide to English Literature , and many others) 0his %art merely %ur%orts to be hel%ful to students of 4nglish by offering them one %ossible handle on a com%le5 tradition of so%histicated ideas) 6t is a sur*ey, and therefore ine*itably selecti*e) 7o biogra%hies are gi*en here and 6 seldom allude to the fictional or %oetic out%ut of the writers who also e5%ressed themsel*es on theoretical issues) 0he reason for this scarcity of information is that 6 rely on my students familiarity with the history of 4nglish literature, and choose to focus here e5clusi*ely on a history of critical and %hiloso%hical ideas) 6t is to that end that %ractically e*ery subcha%ter begins with a brief %ortrait of the age or cultural %aradigm to which the critics dealt with there belonged) 8n the other hand, the lecture notes fre.uently consist of little more than .uotes from other historians of criticism) 9y aim is not to engage with them %olemically, but rather to %ut together a com%endium that can ser*e as a starting %oint in critical research and an easily a*ailable and accessible reference boo- for students who are constantly %ressed for time) 0o that end, this *olume %resents a number of im%ortant scholars and writers who ha*e written on literature, organised in a fairly straightforward diachrony, and ma-es liberal use of mnemotechnic de*ices, such as variable font types, numbered in*entories, underlined terms, Questions, and flashbac-s (Remember?$) 0he names of the main critical figures, as

well as the -ey terms that they ha*e coined or defined decisi*ely, are always gi*en in bold lettering) Tip( 0he Answers to my Questions can be found somewhere between the co*ers of this boo-+ the only e5ce%tions are those .uestions which re.uire you to comment on a s%ecific literary te5t from the %ers%ecti*e of a certain critical school) 6n %re%aring these lecture notes, 6 found Peter Barrys Beginning Theory (!nd ed), !00!$ not only a hel%ful source of information, but also ins%iring in its %edagogic acumen) Although my own understanding of literary theory has been to a large e5tent sha%ed by that boo-, 6 do not .uote him at length e5ce%t in the first lecture) 0he reason is that 6 want to whet your a%%etites, then let you disco*er Beginning Theory on your own) 6 will only say at this %oint that it contains in*aluable definitions, clear com%arati*e: contrasti*e a%%roaches to theoretical schools, and edifying e5am%les of how *arious critical agendas shed light on unsus%ected as%ects of the literary te5t) 6 wish to refer you to that boo- es%ecially in connection with the literary theory of the twentieth century, whose %roliferation and com%le5ity ma-es any ho%e of co*ering it here com%rehensi*ely %ractically uto%ian) 0he boo- is a*ailable in both the British and the American ;ibraries at ;ucian Blaga <ni*ersity and %urchasable online) =imilarly, most of the histories of criticism, anthologies, and readers listed in the =electi*e Bibliogra%hy section are a*ailable in our libraries, and while 6 would not insist that you read all of them, 6 do belie*e that the te5ts enumerated under =eminar 0o%ics in A%%endi5 A are a sine qua non (e*en the ones mar-ed 8%tional 3eading&$ and that >)A) ?uddons Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory should not be unfamiliar to any student) 0he red thread running through this section, also followed by 1idi"6onel ?enu@er in his Notes on English Criticism (!001$, is re%resented by the Plato"Aristotle dis%ute around the nature and function of %oetry) As 1a*id 1aiches demonstrates in his consistent %ursuit of this %olemic in Critical Approaches to Literature (1 5A$, and as 1a*id 3ichter reiterates in the introductory comments included in The Critical Tradition Classic Te!ts and Contemporary Trends (!nd ed), 1 B$, the debate around these issues has informed the whole tradition of /estern thought) Being a Platonic or an Aristotelian thin-er determines ones definition of literature within the cultural conte5t and conditions ones a%%roach to indi*idual artistic %roductions) A note on the reference a%%aratus em%loyed in the lectures should be added here( whene*er a .uote is followed by a

%arenthetical reference, it comes from the history of criticism written by the commentator mentioned either in the %arenthesis or earlier in the te5t) 0he com%lete bibliogra%hical data is a*ailable in the list of Bibliogra%hy at the bac- of the boo-) 6f a .uote is not followed by %arenthetical references, it is a fragment from the wor- by the critic or theoretician discussed in that %articular section) As these wor-s are *astly anthologised and generally either short or -nown in short fragments, %age numbers were considered neither necessary nor hel%ful) 6n the second %art of the boo- 6 tac-le three of the most intimidating critical tendencies of the late twentieth century( historicism, %sychoanalysis, and deconstruction) 6t is my con*iction, also endorsed by Peter Barry in both Beginning Theory and English in Practice (!00'$, and by se*eral other critics, that the literary theories that gained momentum in the 1 #0s and B0s are best understood in conte5t) 6 therefore address them as returns to earlier critical %reoccu%ations and em%hasise their %oints of di*ergence) Although %erha%s less didactically oriented, and clearly more %olemical than the lecture notes, 6 am confident that these essays, too, will enhance your understanding of the subtle dynamics of critical ideas) 6n fact, ;ecture C66 already introduces an argumentati*e note by %ro%osing both a new de%arture from the Age of 0heory and a way of taming abstruse terminologies and .uestioning the legitimacy and rele*ancy of theories) 6n the first of these essays, while e5amining thorny to%ics such as ideology or 9ar5ism and their relationshi% to history, 6 also ma-e an attem%t to suggest a number of ways in which the discussion of literary studies is rele*ant to life in 3omania at the %resent time) ?ontrary to generally held assum%tions of the intrinsic difficulty of the field of literary criticism, 6 submit that its mastery is to a large e5tent a matter of learning the rele*ant definitions and of conte5tualisation) After all, theory is merely a draughtsmans grid, a %ers%ecti*al instrument which hel%s us see things in a certain way, focus on s%ecific as%ects and angles, and ac.uire the medium for the articulation of cogent o%inion) 6 can only ho%e that after reading my boo-, you will not only agree, but be able to a%%ly your newly"ac.uired -nowledge to the thoughtful, informed, and rewarding reading of literary te5ts)

Part One Se!en Lect"res

Lect"re * *ntrod"ctory
Questions to bear in mind throughout the semester: 1. What is the nature of imaginative literature? (see Platos Ion i.e. inspiration or !raft?" #. What $oes literature $o? What is its fun!tion? %. What is the value of literature? &. 'o( $oes the literar) min$ operate in !reation? *. What $oes the !riti! $o? (i.e. $oes he unveil the histori!al !ir!umstan!es in (hi!h the (or+ (as !reate$? Anal)se its language an$ form? Assess its so!ial fun!tion? ,a+e it a!!essible to the rea$ing publi!? et!." -. What $oes the literar) (or+ $o to the !riti!? (i.e. $oes it prompt impressionisti! or autobiographi! revelation? .oes it stimulate him to (or+ aroun$ rather than on it as in hermeneuti!s or in essa)isti! an$ literar) (or+s?"

De$endin% on t e !ns-ers to t ese ;uestions< t e critic=s !cti>ity c!n be s!id to be: onto(o%ic!(< function!(< nor)!ti>e< descri$ti>e< $syc o(o%ic!(< or !$$reci!ti>e. ?efore -e %o !ny furt er in our !tte)$t to deter)ine t e ro(e of t e critic !nd of criticis) !nd to define so)e of t e @ey ter)ino(o%y< -e s ou(d $er !$s s$ecify t !t:
& e $ i(oso$ ic!( Aor onto(o%ic!(B in;uiry into t e n!ture of (iter!ture C - !t !re its distin%uis in% fe!turesD o- does it differ fro) ot er @inds of discourseD C !s been %oin% on in t e Western -or(d for -e(( o>er t-o t ous!nd ye!rs< !nd it continues tod!y !s !cti>e(y !s e>er. & is is t e @ind of ;uestion e!c %ener!tion $refers to !ns-er in its o-n -!y< for (iter!ture is ! co)$(e: $ eno)enon different !s$ects of - ic !re seen !nd e)$ !siEed by different !%es. Fet< t ou% t e !ns-ers differ fro) !%e to !%e< t ere !re f!)i(y rese)b(!nces !)on% %rou$s of !ns-ers< !nd it is not difficu(t to )!@e so)e %ener!( c(!ssific!tions !)on% t e). 4urt er< so)e !ns-ers< o-e>er )uc bound u$ -it t e $rob(e)s of ! $!rticu(!r (iter!ture in ! $!rticu(!r ti)e< !>e been es$eci!((y %er)in!(G (!ter critics !>e !cce$ted t e) or re6inter$reted t e) or bui(t on t e) or )!de use of t e) in so)e ot er -!y. (D!ic es /)

& is is - !t )!@es ! istory of criticis) necess!ry: not on(y is t e e>o(ution of critic!( ide!s interestin% in itse(f< but so)e of t ose ide!s tr!nscend ti)e !nd recur !cross !%es< !(beit in different for)u(!tions. 4or inst!nce< !s D!ic es s o-s<
'er !$s t e )ost fruitfu( of !(( critic!( discussion de>oted to in;uiry into t e n!ture !nd >!(ue of i)!%in!ti>e (iter!ture !s been t e Poetics of *ristot(e< -ritten in t e fourt century before t e birt of " rist C !nd< !s -e !>e it< !n inco)$(ete !nd fr!%)ent!ry -or@ C but sti(( b!sic to !ny discussion of t e ;uestion. *ristot(e=s definition of (iter!ture brin%s out its s$eci!(< differenti!tin% ;u!(ities< de)onstr!tes its function !nd !ssesses >!(ue in ter)s of t !t function< !nd >indic!tes it !%!inst t ose - o consider it use(ess

Part One
or i))or!(. (/)

*+ 'efinitions Literat"re< !ccordin% to *ristot(e< is !n !rt of mimesis< t !t is< i)it!tion or re$resent!tion< - ose function is to brin% to t e surf!ce !nd cure t e u)!n $!ssions. *(t ou% t is definition !s been c !((en%ed in )ore -!ys t !n one o>er t e centuries< its essenti!( !((e%!tions re)!in >!(id. ?ro!d(y< t e ter) (iter!ture
refers to !ny @ind of co)$osition in $rose or >erse - ic !s for its $ur$ose not t e co))unic!tion of f!ct but t e te((in% of ! story (eit er - o((y in>ented or %i>en ne- (ife t rou% in>ention) or t e %i>in% of $(e!sure t rou% so)e use of t e in>enti>e i)!%in!tion in t e e)$(oy)ent of -ords. (D!ic es /< )y e)$ !sis)

& e )ost subst!nti!( !tte)$t to define (iter!ture is< to )y )ind< 'eter Widdo-son=s boo@ entit(ed Literature (1998). & e ende!>our to define (iter!ture is< $er !$s !rtifici!((y< co)$(ic!ted by t e f!ct t !t
& ere is< odd(y enou% < no sin%(e -ord in 1n%(is t !t corres$onds to t e Hree@ poesis or t e Her)!n Dichtung< ter)s - ic refer to $roducts of t e (iter!ry i)!%in!tion !nd do not inc(ude< !s t e ter) literature does< !nyt in% !t !(( t !t is -ritten. & e ter) poetry !s used by so)e e!r(ier -riters C by Sir ' i(i$ Sidney< for e:!)$(e< in is Apologie for Poetrie C !s t e -ider )e!nin% of poesis or Dichtung< but it !s since n!rro-ed in )e!nin%< Iust !s literature !s beco)e too -ide. & us it is i)$ossib(e to tr!ns(!te t e tit(e of Hoet e=s %re!t -or@ Dichtung und Wahrheit into 1n%(is si)$(y !nd ne!t(y: it does not )e!n 5'oetry !nd &rut <7 but r!t er 5I)!%in!ti>e Writin% !nd &rut 7 or $er !$s e>en (if one )ust do it in t ree -ords) 54iction !nd 4!ct.7 (D!ic es 5)

+ne )i% t e;u!((y -e(( !r%ue t !t 54iction7 does not e>en be%in to co>er !(( t e )e!nin%s of poesis !nd is t erefore e;u!((y in!de;u!te. & erefore< -e %ener!((y re(y on ! r!t er intuiti>e underst!ndin% of 5(iter!ture7 - en -e discuss it in ! (iter!ry studies conte:t< - ic does not !((o- for )uc confusion. Literary criticism !nd theory !re )ost usefu((y defined contr!sti>e(y< !(t ou% of (!te t ey often !$$e!r !s interc !n%e!b(e. In is Introduction to Contemporary Literary Criticism (1983)< 0obert "on D!>is inc(udes !(( t e te:ts in t e co((ection under t e e!din% 5(iter!ry criticis)<7 r!t er t !n 5t eory.7 *t so)e $oint< in describin% so)e of t e ess!ys !s 5$r!ctic!( !nd inter$reti>e<7 e co)es c(ose to %i>in% ! definition of t e critic!( !cti>ity !s 5st!%in% t e encounter bet-een (iter!ture !nd t e current t eory7 (5). & is is o-e>er on(y ! )o)ent!ry (!$se. D!>is is not !(one in de!(in% -it criticis) !nd t eory !s coincident!(. In A History of Literary Criticism (1991), .!rry ?(!)ires notes t !t u$ to t e Second Wor(d W!r criticis) !d been ti% t(y connected to de>e(o$)ents in (iter!ture< - ere!s !fter-!rds it tended to iso(!te itse(f fro) t e s$ ere of (i>in% (iter!ry $roduction !nd to deri>e its i)$etus fro) $ i(oso$ y< (in%uistics or soci!( t eory r!t er t !n fro) conte)$or!ry or $!st (iter!ture (3/8). & us< ?(!)ires< too< uses t e ter) 5criticis)7 to refer to (iter!ry t eory !s -e(( !s its $r!ctic!( !$$(ic!tion< !nd re%!rds t e recent de>e(o$)ents in (iter!ry studies !s ! ne- $ !se in criticis) r!t er t !n ! ne-

10

Part One

!$$ro!c to te:tu!(ity (!nd t us $otenti!((y ! ne- disci$(ine !(to%et er). +n t e ot er !nd< 'eter ?!rry in Beginning Theory< t ou% $ur$ortin% to s$e!@ !bout (iter!ry t eory< or%!nises e!c of is c !$ters on >!rious trends to-!rd ! recurrin% subsection entit(ed 5W !t AL!c!ni!n8 4e)inist8 #!r:ist etc.B critics do<7 fo((o-ed by $r!ctic!( 5e:!)$(es.7 & is or%!nis!tion of t e )!teri!( is )e!nt to i((ustr!te t e interde$endence of t e t-o disci$(ines< to su%%est t !t neit er t eory nor criticis) e:ist in ! disci$(in!ry >!cuu). Fet it !(so cre!tes ! cert!in !)ount of confusion re%!rdin% t eir res$ecti>e $ro>inces !nd obIecti>es. In 1953< in is boo@ on Critical Approaches to Literature< D!>id D!ic es differenti!tes bet-een 5critic!( t eory !nd critic!( $r!ctice<7 !(t ou% e !(so s$ecifies t !t suc distinctions< t ou% e($fu(< !re 5in (!r%e de%ree !rtifici!(7 (171). .is distinction is bui(t c ief(y !round t e res$ecti>e $reoccu$!tions -it t e n!ture of (iter!ture (en(!r%ed u$on c rono(o%ic!((y in t e c !$ter 5& e ' i(oso$ ic!( In;uiry7) !nd -it t e !n!(ysis !nd inter$ret!tion of s$ecific (iter!ry -or@s (de!(t -it in c !$ter 2: 5'r!ctic!( "riticis)7). & is re(uct!nce to se$!r!te t e t-o )i% t be re%!rded !s ! sy)$to) of t e tr!dition!( -!riness of *n%(o6*)eric!n criticis) to t!@e 5! t eoretic!( turn<7 !s '!u( .!)i(ton $uts it< !nd its 5$reference for (iter!ry e:!)$(e o>er ru(es of criticis)7 (in Jne((-o(f K 2orris 27). *)eric!n (iter!ry studies in $!rticu(!r is notorious(y resist!nt to< t ou% !(so deri>!ti>e fro)< 1uro$e!n t eory. .o-e>er< t e critics= !-!reness of $ i(oso$ ic!( !nd (in%uistic issues !nd t eir in>o(>e)ent in soci!( !nd $o(itic!( )!tters be%!n )uc e!r(ier t !n ?(!)ires su%%ests. & e >ery roots of (iter!ry inter$ret!tion re!c !(( t e -!y to '(!to=s $ i(oso$ ic!( -cum-$o(itic!( sce$ticis) of $oetry !nd *ristot(e=s $r!%)!tic >indic!tion of $oetry=s athartic ro(e in society. & is conundru)< sti(( >ery )uc in effect !t $resent< )!@es it >irtu!((y i)$ossib(e to !tte)$t !ny sur>ey of criticis) in iso(!tion fro) t e cu(tur!( !nd $ i(oso$ ic!( conte:t. 4or $ure(y euristic (i.e.< instructi>e) re!sons< in - !t fo((o-s I $ro$ose ! distinction bet-een criticis) !nd (iter!ry t eory. *(t ou% concerned -it in erent(y re(!ted issues t !t !re !t e!rt for)s of te:tu!( inter$ret!tion< theory (H@.< to (oo@ !t< >ie-< conte)$(!teG to $erfor)< !s in 5t e!tre7G to $ut into $ers$ecti>e) focuses on !bstr!ct )et odo(o%ic!( $rinci$(es. It in>o(>es dist!nce< $ers$ecti>e< fr!)in%< re$resent!tion< inter$ret!tionG it e>inces !-!reness of (oo@in%< of its situ!tedness !is-"-!is its obIect. Its ru(es !re< on t e one !nd< e:tr!cted fro) t e discussion of t e n!ture of te:ts (- et er t ey be (iter!ture< t e >isu!( !rts< f!s ion< !rc itecture< $ i(oso$ y< or criticis)) !s eit er (!n%u!%e or cu(tur!( $roducts< !nd< on t e ot er< !$$(ied in furt er !n!(yses of te:ts. Criticism< by contr!st< !$$(ies t e $rinci$(es deri>ed by t eory< but focuses on its obIect r!t er t !n on its o-n )et odG it usu!((y $roceeds deducti>e(y. "onse;uent(y< t ere is ! furt er distinction re%!rdin% t e n!ture of t eir res$ecti>e discourse ty$es: t eory is %ener!((y metacritical (i.e.< a#out criticis))< refle&i!e !nd self-referential (i.e.< it focuses on itse(f)< - i(e criticis) is )ore ob>ious(y referential< trans%arent !nd critic!( of its obIect r!t er t !n of itse(f< -it out o-e>er (!c@in% se(f6consciousness. & us< t e st!nds t!@en by re!ders !is-"-!is t e te:t< !s -e(( !s t e c oice of te:ts to d-e(( on< s !$e to !

Part One

11

(!r%e e:tent bot t e tone !nd t e subst!nce of critic!( discourse. & eory is< !s it -ere< t-ice re)o>ed fro) t e !rtistic $roduct< !nd )uc )ore inde$endent to de>ise its o-n (!-s !nd $rinci$(es by re(yin% on e:tr!6(iter!ry disci$(ines suc !s $syc o(o%y< istory< socio(o%y< !nd es$eci!((y (in%uistics. "riticis) is - !t D!>is ter)s 5$r!ctic!(7 inter$ret!tion< t !t is< t e site of t e encounter bet-een (iter!ture !nd t eory. Suc distinctions !re of course ine>it!b(y reducti>e !nd %o !%!inst )uc conte)$or!ry sc o(!r(y t in@in%. In recent ye!rs criticis) !nd t eory !>e incre!sin%(y en%!%ed in ! di!(ectics t !t )!@es it >irtu!((y i)$ossib(e to se$!r!te t e). 4urt er)ore< $oststructur!(ist sc o(!rs i$ insists on b(urrin% t e bound!ry bet-een t e (iter!ry !nd t e ()et!)critic!( te:ts !(to%et er< re%!rdin% t e (!tter !s !not er n!rr!ti>e - ose referenti!(ity is $(!ced under er!sure by t e >ery n!ture of !(( (!n%u!%e< )et!(!n%u!%e inc(uded (see Lecture ,I). *s I s$ecified !bo>e< t e ro(e of t ese distinctions is strict(y e:$(!n!tory !nd )et odo(o%ic!(. In t is sense on(y is it re(e>!nt to ;uote ! discussion of t e desir!bi(ity of criticis)=s re(i!nce on istoric!( conte:t< in - ic .!yden W ite $rescribes - !t e dee)s to be t e ri% t !$$ro!c to (iter!ry studiesi:
& is is t e function of t eory in %ener!(< t !t is to s!y< to $ro>ide Iustific!tion of ! st!nce >is6L6>is t e )!teri!(s bein% de!(t -it t !t c!n render it $(!usib(e. Indeed< t e function of t eory is to Iustify ! notion of $(!usibi(ity itse(f. Wit out suc ! Iustific!tion< criticis) es$eci!((y is (eft -it not in% but 5co))on sense7 to f!(( b!c@ on. In (iter!ry t eory in $!rticu(!r< t e !i) is to define C for $ri)!ri(y euristic $ur$oses !nd not !s ! )!tter of constitutin% so)e '(!tonic !bso(ute C - !t -i(( be $er)itted to count !s ! s$ecific!((y (iter!ry -or@ !nd - !t @inds of re(!tions i$s t e -or@ t us defined c!n be concei>ed to be!r to ot er @inds of cu(tur!( !rtif!cts< on t e one side< !nd to - !te>er $!sses for ! non6cu(tur!( !rtif!ct< on t e ot er. (in D!>is 1983: 157)

W ite=s $rescri$tion of t eory=s function $ro>ides us -it ! usefu( -or@in% $re)ise in our !tte)$t to $robe t e co)$(e: connections bet-een de>e(o$)ents in (iter!ry criticis) !nd t eory. & e (!tter !()ost o$$ortunistic!((y $ustifies and regulates ! $erce$ti>e< in>enti>e res$onse to t e te:t C - et er it be ! istoric!( e>ent< soci!( re(!tions< t e indi>idu!( $syc e< or ! (iter!ry -or@. Liter!ry criticis) is suc ! res$onseG !nd !(t ou% focused $ri)!ri(y on (iter!ture< it often re(ies on !n e:tr!6 (iter!ry fr!)e-or@ of ide!s !nd $rinci$(es t !t Iustifies its c(!i)s to $(!usibi(ity. **+ ,hat critics do *not er -!y of definin% criticis) is by deter)inin% - !t it is t !t critics do (!s o$$osed to - !t t eoretici!ns say). In is (ecture entit(ed 5W y & eoryD<7 - ic e de(i>ers e>ery ye!r !t t e 9ni>ersity of W!(es< *beryst-yt < 'eter ?!rry (ists ! 5t!:ono)y of (iter!ry inter$ret!tion<7 ! re$ertoire of !cti>ities t !t critics dr!- u$on in t e !ct of (iter!ry !n!(ysis: 1. We look for some overall structural pattern C t !t is< so)et in% t !t $ro>ides ! structur!( fr!)e for t e - o(e -or@.
4or e:!)$(e< t-o c !r!cters or t-o cou$(es in ! no>e( or ! $(!y )!y be $!ired !nd

12

Part One
contr!sted t rou% out. & e contr!st )!y be su$$orted by i)!%e6$!tterns (in@ed to e!c < by s$eec sty(es c !r!cteristic of e!c < by sy))etric!( or $!r!((e( $(ot (ines !$$(yin% to e!c < etc. +nce t e structure $!ttern !s been $ercei>ed< ! - o(e (ine of inter$ret!tion c!n be bui(t.

2. We look for similarity beneath apparent dissimilarity, or vice-versa

4or e:!)$(e< t e t-o cou$(es )!y be $resented !s su$erfici!((y !(i@e< or !s su$erfici!((y t e o$$osite of e!c ot er< but ! c(ose re!din% s o-s t !t - !t !t first see)ed true is !ctu!((y untrue. 4or inst!nce< one cou$(e see)s i% (y )!teri!(istic !nd t e ot er i% (y ide!(istic< but in t e end e>ents s o- t e ide!(ists to be unyie(din% !nd inf(e:ib(e< - i(e t e )!teri!(ists !re s o-n to be underst!ndin% !nd for%i>in% of u)!n fr!i(ty.

3. We distinguish between OVE ! and "OVE ! content C t !t is< bet-een !$$!rent content !nd re!( content.
4or e:!)$(e< t e $oet e.e.cu))in%s !s ! $oe) !bout dri>in% ! c!r - ic is !ctu!((y !bout )!@in% (o>e C it=s not ! >ery %ood $oe). .er)!n #e(>i((e !s ! no>e( !bout untin% ! - !(e - ic is !ctu!((y !bout se!rc in% for t e )e!nin% of t e uni>erse. It=s c!((ed %o#y Dic !nd it=s ! >ery %ood boo@.

/. We distinguish between meaning and significance C 5)e!nin%7 is (i@e so)et in% inside t e -or@< - ere!s 5si%nific!nce7 is !bout so)et in% -e $ercei>e in t e -or@ - ic is c !n%e!b(e. If you t in@ of t e (iter!ry -or@ !s bein% (i@e t e se!< 5)e!nin%7 is (i@e t e s!(t C it=s one of t e in%redients of t e -!ter C - ere!s si%nific!nce is (i@e its co(our< - ic is so)et in% t !t c !n%es -it t e (i% t conditions t rou% out t e d!y.
In is boo@ Literary Theory& An 'ntroduction< &erry 1!%(eton s!ys t !t -e c!n $rob!b(y be sure t !t (ing Lear is not !bout #!nc ester 9nited< t e footb!(( te!). .e s ou(d !>e s!id t !t #!nc ester 9nited is not $!rt of t e meaning of (ing Lear but it )!y -e(( be $!rt of t e significance. (ing Lear is !bout so)ebody - o retires< but c!n=t (et %o. & ey -!nt to @ee$ contro( of t eir s;u!d !nd @ee$ on !>in% ! s!y in runnin% t e c(ub (or t e @in%do)). In ot er -ords< t e $!r!((e( bet-een Jin% Le!r !nd one of t e e:6$residents of t !t footb!(( c(ub< Sir #!tt ?urby< is !ctu!((y $retty c(ose. *nd !fter !((< t e $(!y does )ention footb!((: Jent t re!tens +s-!(d< 52or tri$$=d neit er< you b!se footb!(( $(!yerD7 !nd t en tri$s i) (*ct I< scene i>).

5. We think in terms of genre or literary type C t !t is< -e !s@ o- t e (iter!ry %enre !ffects t e content of t e -or@.
4or inst!nce< in ! 0en!iss!nce st!%e tr!%edy !n e>i( c !r!cter )!y o$en(y dec(!re is >i((!iny< !s - en 0ic !rd t e & ird !nnounces< 5I !) deter)ined to $ro>e ! >i((!in7 (I.i). ?ut -e don=t conc(ude t !t e is ! $erson of unco))on se(f6@no-(ed%e or onesty< bec!use t is @ind of !nnounce)ent is one of t e con>entions of t e %enreG it !((o-s t e !ut or to !ddress t e !udience direct(y but by $ro:y< en!b(in% t e !ction to be %re!t(y !cce(er!ted (in ! sense< !ntici$!tin% t e for)s of direct !ut ori!( co))ent on c !r!cters de>e(o$ed (!ter -it t e rise of t e no>e().

3. We fre#uently read the literal as metaphorical C t !t is< es$eci!((y in re!din% $oe)s.

4or e:!)$(e< ! conte)$or!ry $oe) c!((ed 5& e 4or@ed &ree7 by #!rion Lo)!:< - ic see)s to be !bout ! re(!tions i$< )entions 5! s !do- -it its d!r@ %un7 be ind t e tree< - ic is !t first >ery $uEE(in%. It t en %oes on to )ention ! 5bu((et (od%ed inside before -e @ne- it -!s %ro-in%<7 - ic see)s to su%%est !n !ss!ssin!tion by so)e outside fi%ure. ?ut (iter!( bu((ets c!n=t %ro-< !nd t is is t e c(ue - ic s o-s t !t it is !ctu!((y !

Part One

1"

)et!$ oric!( bu((et< !nd it beco)es c(e!r t !t it is ! )et!$ or for ! f!t!( i((ness - ic one of t e c !r!cters is found to be sufferin% fro). & is @ind of inter$reti>e )o>e ((iter!( det!i(s (i@e bu((ets re!d )et!$ oric!((y) is >ery co))on in t e re!din% of $oetry.

7. $n spite of this, we read the surface of the work accurately C in ot er -ords< -e reco%nise t e i)$ort!nce of t e $recise (iter!( -ords of t e te:t !nd do not t!@e (iberties -it t e).
4or e:!)$(e< in ! f!)ous e:$eri)ent set u$ by I.*. 0ic !rds in t e 1920s< se>er!( re!ders conc(uded t !t t e (ines< 5* to!st< ! rin%in% to!st< unto t e @in% 8 +f !(( our e!rts tod!y7 o$ened ! 0oy!(ist $oe) !bout drin@in% t e @in%=s e!(t . ?ut t e ne:t (ine runs on< !nd )!@es it c(e!r t !t t is is ! @in% of e!rts< !nd on(y for t e d!y. In ot er -ords< it is ! birt d!y ce(ebr!tion $oe) for ! $o$u(!r $erson< !nd is not !ddressed to ! re!( @in% !t !((.

8. We look for patterns in literary works C t ou% )ost si%nific!nt $!rt is - ere t e $!ttern is bro@en.

-e re!(ise t !t often t e

4or e:!)$(e< in t e $oe) 5& e 4or@ed &ree7 t ere is ! re$e!ted $!ttern of t in%s in $!irs (obIects< e>ents< etc.) !nd t ere is !(so !n e>ent - ic bre!@s t is $!ttern. In ot er -ords< ! -ord - ic is out of @ey -it t e rest< or - ic bre!@s t e )etric!( $!ttern -i(( often be es$eci!((y si%nific!nt< for it )ust !>e been c osen eit er in s$ite of bre!@in% t e $!ttern< or bec!use it does so< !nd is t ereby fore%rounded. In t e s!)e -!y< if you (oo@ !t ! undred ro-s of f(o-ers in ! -!((6$!$ered roo)< t e on(y ones - ic c!tc your !ttention !re t e ones - ic !re not $ro$er(y !(i%ned.

9. We identify stages and phases within a literary work C - ic (ine in ! $oe) is t e end of t e be%innin%< t e )o)ent - ere e:$osition s(ides into de>e(o$)entD W ere is t e )o)ent in t e c ess %!)e - en t e routine -ood sn!$$in% of t e )idd(e $ !se is o>er< !nd t e st!r@ si)$(icity of t e end%!)e !s !rri>ed - en !ny !nd e>ery )o>e c!n be eit er ! decisi>e stro@e of bri((i!nce< or ! f!t!( b(underD W ic incident in ! no>e( is t e one - ere t e introduction of settin% !nd c !r!cters $i>ots into t e first si%nific!nt incident< or c oice< or deni!(D
4or e:!)$(e< in S !@es$e!re=s Sonnet 73 A& e ti)e of ye!r t ou )!yst in )e be o(dB< it is i)$ort!nt to decide - et er t e t ree i)!%es of !%in% (t e b!re trees of (!te !utu)n< t e (!st %(i))ers of t e sunset< !nd t e dyin% e)bers of fire) !re )e!nt to re$resent so)e @ind of $ro%ression< or Iust t ree e:!)$(es of t e s!)e t in%.

10. %inally, as readers, we read in linguistic period, aware &among other things' of semantic changes C t !t is< c !n%es in t e )e!nin%s of -ords.
4or e:!)$(e< in S !@es$e!re=s '' Henry ') 4!(st!ff t!(@s !bout is -o)b (5#y -o)b undoes )e<7 e s!ys in I,.iii). Do -e conc(ude t !t e is un)!nnin% i)se(f< or c(!i)in% so)e @ind of doub(e6%endered uni>ers!(ityD Suc e:$(!n!tions )!y be te)$tin%< but t e f!ct is t !t in 1(iE!bet !n ti)es t e -ord 5-o)b7 sti(( !d t e o(der )e!nin% of 5sto)!c 7 !nd -!s used of bot )en !nd -o)en. 4!(st!ff is si)$(y s!yin% t !t is (!r%e sto)!c $re>ents i) fro) bein% ! br!>e !nd !%i(e so(dier. ('eter ?!rry< *nglish in Practice 1061/< s(i% t(y !brid%ed) Home assignment: /or our ne0t seminar meeting tr) to assign all these !riti!al a!tivities to the theoreti!al tren$s the) are most !hara!teristi! of. What is missing? ii

***+ -a%%ing o"t the Territory +ur $resent in>o(>e)ent is $ri)!ri(y -it

t e e>o(ution of criticis)< of t e

1/

Part One

>!rious $r!ctic!( !$$ro!c es to (iter!ture< !nd on(y t!n%enti!((y -it t e $ i(oso$ ic!( !nd t eoretic!( buttressin% be ind it. We -i(( s!y< t erefore< t !t our discourse is metacritical: meta M (H@.) !fter< beyond< besideG t!@e !-!y.
e.g. metaph)si!s (after 1Aristotles (or+ on2 ph)si!s" metalanguage (language about language i.e. the language of linguisti!s" metahistor) (the histor) of histor)3 historiograph)" metaphor (4+. !arr)ing from one pla!e to another $ispla!ing"

In ot er -ords< -e -i(( criticise t e critics< !nd be< )ost of t e ti)e< !t one re)o>e fro) t e $r!ctic!( !cti>ity of t e critic. +ne -!y of !$$ro!c in% t e t-o6!nd6!6 !(f6)i((enni!6(on% istory of criticis) is by dr!-in% u$ c !rts !nd c(!ssific!tions. & is is t e )et od e)$(oyed by D!>id .. 0ic ter in t e Introduction to The Critical Tradition< - ere e renders >!rious t eories of criticis) in t e for) of t ree 5)!$s.7 I -i(( brief(y re$roduce t e (e!st co)$(e: !nd )ost tr!dition!( of t e) ere< !nd 0ic ter=s di!%r!) in *$$endi: ". It is in f!ct ! )!$ de>ised by t e (iter!ry istori!n #... *br!)s in is inf(uenti!( tre!tise on ro)!ntic >ie-s of !rt< The %irror and the Lamp (1953)< - ere e distin%uis ed bet-een / different ty$es of t eories:
.istoric!((y< t e first ty$e< t e mimetic t eories of c(!ssic!( !nti;uity< focused on t e re(!tions i$ bet-een t e outside -or(d !nd t e -or@ of !rt. & ese t eories $osited t !t $oetry cou(d best be understood !s !n i)it!tion< ! re$resent!tion< ! co$y of t e $ ysic!( -or(d. & e second ty$e< t e rhetorical< e)$ !siEed t e re(!tions i$ bet-een t e -or@ of !rt !nd its !udience C eit er o- t e (iter!ry -or@ s ou(d be for)ed to $(e!se !nd instruct its !udience< or - !t t !t !udience s ou(d be (i@e in order to !$$reci!te (iter!ture correct(y. & ese t eories e(d t !t to !tt!in its $ro$er effect< t e $oe) )ust be s !$ed by bot t e $oet=s inn!te t!(ent !nd t e ru(es of !rt. Suc t eories< )ost $o$u(!r durin% t e (!ter c(!ssic!( $eriod< t e #idd(e *%es< !nd t e 0en!iss!nce< be%!n to dec(ine to-!rd t e end of t e ei% teent century. & e t ird ty$e< c!((ed e+pressi!e by *br!)s< stressed t e re(!tions i$ bet-een t e -or@ of !rt !nd t e !rtist< $!rticu(!r(y t e s$eci!( f!cu(ties of )ind !nd sou( t !t t e !rtist brin%s to t e !ct of cre!tion. & ese t eories $ro(ifer!ted durin% t e (!te ei% teent !nd )ost of t e nineteent centuries. & e fourt ty$e< - ic de>e(o$ed !round t e be%innin% of t e t-entiet century< $(!yed do-n t e connections of t e -or@ of !rt -it t e e:terior -or(d< t e !udience< !nd t e !rtist. & ese formal t eories stressed t e $ure(y !est etic re(!tions i$ bet-een t e $!rts of ! -or@ of (iter!ture< !n!(yEin% its 5t e)es7 or 5)otifs7 !s if ! (iter!ry te:t -ere ! for) of c(!ssic!( )usic or !n !bstr!ct $!intin%< !nd stro>e for ! ;u!si6scientific obIecti>ity. Nfor)!( t eories Ano-!d!ysB f!ce ! %re!t de!( of co)$etition. (0ic ter 263)

Fet 0ic ter dr!-s our !ttention t !t< !s *br!)s i)se(f -e(( @ne-< t e 5-or(d of criticis) is not !s c(e!r or !s ne!t !s t is di!%r!) su%%ests.7 L!be(s suc !s O)i)etic= or Oe:$ressi>e= indic!te 5on(y t e $ri)!ry orient!tion of ! t eory: O*ny re!son!b(e t eory t!@es !ccount of !(( four e(e)ents=7 (3).
e.g. Aristotle belongs essentiall) to the mimeti! t)pe of theor) although he foresha$o(s mu!h of the rhetori!al an$ e0pressive orientations in his Poeti!s.

Part One

1.

#oreo>er< t e f!ct t !t t-o critics be(on% fund!)ent!((y to one ty$e of t eory does not )e!n t !t t eir t eories coincide or e>en !%ree< !s -e s !(( see is t e c!se -it '(!to !nd *ristot(e< t e first t-o i)$ort!nt t eoretici!ns of (iter!ture. &o co)$(ic!te )!tters furt er< -e )i% t re)!r@ t !t t e di!%r!) is inco)$(ete: !>in% been de>ised in t e 1950s< it does not co>er )ore recent de>e(o$)ents in (iter!ry studies< suc !s structur!(is) !nd t e $ost6structur!(ist trends. Its )erit is t !t it syste)!tises t e @ey !$$ro!c es to t e n!ture of (iter!ry cre!tion< - ic !>e been $er$etu!ted since t e ti)e of '(!to !nd *ristot(e.

12

Part One

Lect"re ** Prec"rsors
*+ The Platonic 'ilemma Plato (c./2763/8 ?") -!s essenti!((y ! $ i(oso$ er !nd did not -rite !ny (iter!ry criticis) per se. 2onet e(ess< in is $reoccu$!tion -it t e n!ture of t in%s C - ic !s co)e to be @no-n in $ i(oso$ y !s '(!tonic *dealism C e did sto$ to en;uire into t e n!ture of t e >!rious !rts. In 'on !nd es$eci!((y in ?oo@ P of is ,epu#lic< '(!to is concerned -it bot t e ori%ins of (iter!ture !nd -it its function in society. It is es$eci!((y -it t e (!tter !s$ect t !t e de!(s )ost serious(y. ,epu#lic P cont!ins is )ost often6;uoted $osition on (iter!ture: e b!nis es $oets fro) is ide!( city bec!use in $resentin% t e i)$ro$er conduct of eroes !nd %ods t ey corru$t t e )or!(s !nd )!nners of t e youn% !nd of t e citiEens !nd 5%u!rdi!ns7 of t e city. '(!to=s obIection to $oetry is t reefo(d: 1. 1$iste)o(o%ic!( (i.e.< !>in% to do -it is t eory of @no-(ed%e): in bein% !n i)it!tion of t e )!teri!( -or(d< $oetry is t-ice re)o>ed fro) t e -or(d of Ide!( 4or)s< !nd t erefore it isn=t true. 2. 9ti(it!ri!n8 $r!ctic!(: not on(y !re $!intin% !nd $oetry i)it!tions of i)it!tions< but t ey !re de>ised by $eo$(e - o @no- neit er o- to use nor o- to bui(d t e obIects t ey re$resent.iii *rt is t us concei>ed in i%nor!nce of trut in bot senses of t e -ord: bot (!c@ of @no-(ed%e !nd underst!ndin%< !nd (!c@ of interest in t e $otenti!( uti(ity of findin% t e trut . 3. #or!(: not on(y does t e $oet i)it!te (ife< but e usu!((y c ooses to i)it!te t !t - ic !$$e!(s to t e b!sest f!cu(ties: e de!(s not -it re!(ity !s it is< but c ooses t e e:tre)es of u)!n be !>iour. .e does so< on t e one !nd< bec!use t ey !re e!sier to i)it!te in bein% si)$(ific!tions< t e c !n%in% surf!ces r!t er t !n t e co)$(e:ity of trut < !nd< on t e ot er< bec!use t e $!ssion!te !nd unst!b(e te)$er< !(on%side >io(ence !nd inIustice< )ore e!si(y c!tc t e !ttention of co))on s$ect!tors. & us !rt nouris es !nd encour!%es< inste!d of curin%< t e inferior $!ssions of t e sou(.
(see D!ic es 20622)

& e di(e))! $osed by '(!to is doub(e6sided: on t e one !nd< it is< !s e $uts it< 5t e !ncient ;u!rre( bet-een $ i(oso$ y !nd $oetry7 C ! )!tter of t e re(!tions i$ of $oetry to trut . +n t e ot er< it is t e di(e))! of t e $r!ctic!( )or!(ist !nd t e $r!%)!tic )!n of business to - o) !ny !cti>ity is sus$ect - ic c!nnot be direct(y re(!ted to t e $roduction of !n ob>ious %ood for society. '(!to c(oses is indict)ent of $oetry by (!unc in% ! c !((en%e to - oe>er cou(d $ro>e i) -ron% to s o- t !t $oetry cou(d redee) itse(f !nd )!@e itse(f !cce$t!b(e in t e ide!( city. & !t c !((en%e -!s t!@en u$ by is !$$rentice< *ristot(e< !nd t e di(e))! -!s $ro>ision!((y reso(>ed. Fet -e sti(( !s@ tod!y so)e of t e s!)e ;uestions t !t '(!to r!ised:

Part One

1,

W !t is t e nat"re of t e -or@ of artD W !t !re its so"rces in t e !rtist< in t e (iter!ry scene< in t e society for - ic it is $roducedD W !t !re its %ro%erties. "ses. %owers< !nd !al"eD .o- is t e n!ture of (iter!ture circu)scribed by t e %ro%erties of lang"age itse(f< by t e gender of t e -riter or t e re!der< by t e intrinsic limitations of the h"man mindD W !t !re (iter!ture=s effects on indi>idu!(s !nd on co))unitiesD (0ic ter 1 C )y e)$ !sis) Q: What $o (e !all the metho$ emplo)e$ b) 5o!rates in $ra(ing out the truth from his interlo!utors? Is its fun!tion to $emonstrate the vali$it) of an i$ea or to persua$e the interlo!utor? (see 6Ion7"iv

**+ The Aristotelian Sol"tion Aristotle (38/6322 ?") ('(!to=s student in *t ens for t-enty ye!rs !nd *(e:!nder t e Hre!t=s tutor in #!cedoni! for ei% t ye!rs) -!s< (i@e '(!to< ! $ i(oso$ er< !nd is contribution to $ ysics -!s in>!(u!b(e. It -!s is scientific bend t !t !((o-ed i) to endo- n!tur!( $ eno)en! -it ! >!(idity t !t '(!to !d tr!nsferred to t e ti)e(ess Ide!s. .e -!s (ess concerned -it i)!%in!ti>e (iter!ture=s educ!tion!( function< !nd )ore o$en to %i>in% (iter!ture its due on its o-n %rounds. .e -rote t e first tre!tise on (iter!ry t eory e>er< t e (oetics< in - ic e dr!-s essenti!( distinctions bet-een t e >!rious (iter!ry genres @no-n to i)< !s -e(( !s usefu( definitions !nd c(!ssific!tions.
Remember? !riteria for $istinguishing bet(een +in$s of representational art8 the) !an $iffer in the representative me$ium emplo)e$ in the +in$s of ob9e!ts represente$ an$ in the (a) in (hi!h a given me$ium is han$le$ i.e. in medium, subject-matter an$ technique. the - formative elements of trage$)8 spe!ta!le (a!ting" $i!tion (the verses the !hara!ters re!ite" melo$) (rh)thm" !hara!ter thought (or $ianoia i.e. an element in the personalit) of the $ramatis personae8 their intelle!tual !apa!it) for reasoning an$ persuasion as evin!e$ in their language an$ rhetori!" an$ plot (the most important element be!ause it !ontains an$ !onve)s the meaning of the trage$)". Plot is the (a) in (hi!h the a!tion (or+s itself out the (hole !ausal !hain (hi!h lea$s to the final out!ome. Its most $ramati! parts are Peripeties (su$$en reversals of fortune" an$ .is!overies (su$$en revelations of !on!eale$ or mista+en i$entities an$ unravelling of m)steries". the three unities of time pla!e an$ a!tion ne!essar) to the formal perfe!tion of trage$). generi! $ivisions b) 6voi!e78 in the epi! genre both the poet an$ the !hara!ters have a voi!e (narrative an$ $ialogue respe!tivel)": in the l)ri! (e hear onl) the poets voi!e: in the $ramati! onl) the !hara!ters.

D!>id D!ic es e:$(!ins t e di!(ectics of (iter!ture=s n!ture !nd function !ccordin% to *ristot(e:

1-

Part One
.is concern is t e onto(o%ic!( one of disco>erin% - !t in f!ct (iter!ture is r!t er t !n t e nor)!ti>e one of describin% - !t it s ou(d be A!nd do< -e )i% t !ddB. .e is describin%< not (e%is(!tin%G yet is descri$tion is so or%!niEed !s to )!@e !n !ccount of t e n!ture of (iter!ture in>o(>e !n !ccount of its function< !nd its >!(ue e)er%es in ter)s of its function. (2/)

*ristot(e=s !ccount of t e n!ture of (iter!ture $i>ots on is ne- underst!ndin% of mimesis. *s o$$osed to t e istori!n<
AtB e $oet does not si)$(y i)it!te or re$resent $!rticu(!r e>ents or situ!tions - ic e !$$ens to !>e noted or in>entedG e !nd(es t e) in suc ! -!y t !t e brin%s out t eir uni>ers!( !nd c !r!cteristic e(e)ents< t us i((u)in!tin% t e essenti!( n!ture of so)e e>ent or situ!tion - et er or not - !t e is te((in% is istoric!((y true. & e $oet -or@s 5!ccordin% to t e (!- of $rob!bi(ity or necessity<7 not !ccordin% to so)e c !nce obser>!tion or r!ndo) in>ention. .e is t us )ore fund!)ent!((y scientific t !n t e istori!nN. ?ec!use t e $oet in>ents or !rr!n%es is o-n story< e cre!tes ! se(f6 sufficient -or(d of is o-n< -it its o-n co)$e((in% @ind of $rob!bi(ity< its o-n ine>it!bi(ity< !nd - !t !$$ens in t e $oet=s story is bot 5$rob!b(e7 in ter)s of t !t -or(d !nd< bec!use t !t -or(d is itse(f ! for)!( construction b!sed on e(e)ents in t e re!( -or(d< !n i((u)in!tion of !n !s$ect of t e -or(d !s it re!((y is. (D!ic es 37)

& e -riter=s c!$!city to de>ise ! se(f6sufficient -or(d is t e cre!tor=s i% est $o-erG it is @no-n !s mythopoeia. *ristot(e=s defence of $oetry in%es on it< !s it does !-!y -it si)$(istic notions of $!ssi>e co$yin% !nd t us -it '(!to=s e$iste)o(o%ic!( !nd uti(it!ri!n obIections. *s D!ic es e:c(!i)s< -it *ristot(e (iter!ry criticis) re!c es !n entire(y ne- (e>e(. & e i)$(ic!tions !re >!st:
&-o ne- notions !re in>o(>ed. 4irst< t ere is t e notion t !t ! istoric!( f!(se ood )!y be !n ide!( trut < t !t ! 5$rob!b(e i)$ossibi(ity7 )!y ref(ect ! )ore $rofound re!(ity t !n !n 5i)$rob!b(e $ossibi(ity7G !nd< second< t ere is t e $erce$tion t !t ! (iter!ry !rtist $roduces ! -or@ - ic !s ! unity !nd for)!( $erfection of its o-n< ! -or@ - ic t us cre!tes its o-n -or(d of $rob!bi(ity -it in - ic trut c!n be reco%niEed !nd !$$reci!ted. *(( @inds of de>e(o$)ents of e!c of t ese t-o notions !re $ossib(e. 4ro) t e first -e c!n de>e(o$ ! >ie- of t e co%niti>e !s$ects of t e !rtistic i)!%in!tion !nd so re%!rd !rt !s ! )e!ns of e:$(orin% t e n!ture of re!(ity. +n t is >ie- ! (iter!ry -or@ beco)es in t e (!st !n!(ysis ! for) of @no-(ed%e< ! uni;ue -!y of $resentin% ! @ind of insi% t into ! $ !se of t e u)!n situ!tion - ic c!nnot be e:$ressed or co))unic!t6ed in !ny ot er -!y. 4ro) t e second i)$(ic!tion of t e *ristote(i!n >ieof (iter!ry $rob!bi(ity -e c!n de>e(o$ ! t eory of (iter!ry for) !nd structure< in>esti%!tin% t e @inds of unity ! $oe) or ot er (iter!ry -or@ c!n !c ie>e !nd t e @inds of s!tisf!ction !fforded by reco%nition !nd !$$reci!tion of t !t unity. 'uttin% bot i)$(ic!tions to%et er< -e c!n see t e uni;ue $!rt $(!yed by for) in $resentin% t e s$eci!( @inds of insi% t !c ie>ed by t e !rtistic i)!%in!tion< t e re(!tion bet-een !rt !s $!ttern !nd !rt !s @no-(ed%e< !nd -e c!n see< too< o- different @inds of (iter!ry !rt c!n stress one or ot er !s$ect C t e co%niti>e or t e $ure(y for)!( C unti( -e re!c t e $oint !t - ic t e -or@ - ic co)bines t e co))unic!tion of $rofound insi% t -it t e s!tisf!ction of for)!( $erfection ( Hamlet or (ing Lear< for e:!)$(e) is %re!ter t !n ! -or@ - ic de)onstr!tes on(y t e (!tter ;u!(ity (suc !s ! $erfect detecti>e story). (37638)

& is re!(is!tion of t e s$eci!( n!ture of i)it!tion !nd of trut in (iter!ture !nd

Part One

1+

t e criteri! for >!(ue Iud%e)ents t !t de>o(>e fro) it !re *ristot(e=s %re!test !c ie>e)ent. Indeed< not on(y does it so(>e t e '(!tonic di(e))! re%!rdin% t e n!ture of i)!%in!ti>e (iter!ture< but it co)$rises in ! nuts e(( !(( t e found!tion!( tenets of (iter!ry criticis). In ot er -ords< !fter *ristot(e criticis) beco)es !n inde$endent disci$(ine - ic Iud%es $oetry not by t e st!nd!rds of istory or $ i(oso$ y< but on its o-n ter)s< of - ic !n essenti!( $ro$osition is t !t 5! (i@e(y i)$ossibi(ity is !(-!ys $refer!b(e to !n uncon>incin% $ossibi(ity.7 *not er of *ristot(e=s i)$ort!nt contributions is is refut!tion of '(!to=s criticis) of $oetry=s tendency to !rouse fee(in%s irres$onsib(y !nd $erturb t e e!rt to no r!tion!( end. *ccordin% to *ristot(e< i% !rt (i.e.< t e e$ic !nd tr!%edy) !s t e c!$!city to $roduce fe!r !nd $ity in t e !udience< !nd t us to $ur%e t e !udience of cri$$(in% $!ssions. & is c!$!city is c!((ed katharsis< !nd it is $!rticu(!r(y !ssoci!ted -it t e $resent!tion of c !r!cters - o !re une:ce$tion!( (!nd t erefore e!sy for t e !udience to identify -it ) !nd co)e to !r) not by !ny !ct of -ic@edness< but !s ! resu(t of so)e f(!- in t eir n!ture or so)e error of Iud%e)ent. & us< *ristot(e !ssi%ns !(( !rts of i)it!tion to t e re!() of t e be!utifu( r!t er t !n trut < !nd defines aesthetic >!(ue not strict(y in ter)s of infor)!ti>e !ccur!cy !nd )or!( te!c in%< !s '(!to !d< but !(so of inte((ectu!( !nd !est etic s!tisf!ction< !nd of its $roducin% ! better st!te of )ind (t rou% atharsis). *(t ou% usin% t e c!te%ories of )or!( Iud%e)ent (%ood !nd b!d) in differenti!tin% t e t-o ty$es of dr!)!< *ristot(e does not !ssi%n !ustere )or!( connot!tions to t e):
.e is c!refu( to e:$(!in t !t in co)edy t e i)it!tion of )en -orse t !n ourse(>es does not )e!n -orse O!s re%!rds !ny !nd e>ery sort of f!u(t< but on(y !s re%!rds one $!rticu(!r @ind< t e 0idicu(ous.= *nd t e 0idicu(ous )!y be defined !s O! )ist!@e or defor)ity not $roducti>e of $!in or !r) to ot ers.= *ristot(e !((o-s !n !est etic >!(ue e>en in descri$tions of - !t is un$(e!s!nt< suc !s ! $utrefyin% cor$se< bec!use t e infor)!ti>e !ccur!cy of t e !ccount )!y %i>e s!tisf!ction. (?(!)ires 8) Q: .oes this not remin$ )ou of another $is!ussion (e on!e ha$ aroun$ the Ri$i!ulous an$ its $efinition an$ the literar) genre that is most suitable to a!!ommo$ate it? >

***+ Other /iews & ere is ! - o(e (ine of criticis) e>o(>in% fro) *ristot(e=s conce$ts< but before -e c!n $roceed to discuss it< brief )ention s ou(d be )!de of so)e of t e ot er !ncients - ose n!)es !re %ener!((y in>o@ed in discussions of t e istory of criticis). +ne of t ese !ncients is t e r etorici!n Cassi"s Longin"s (c.217673)< or - oe>er it -!s t !t -rote t e tr!ct On the )ublime in t e first or second century *D !nd $!sses under t !t n!)e. On the -u#lime< too< (i@e *ristot(e=s Poetics< o$ens u$ ! ne- (ine of criticis): it $ro$oses !n 5!ffecti>e7 t eory of (iter!ture centred on t e ide! t !t i% !rt mo!es t e !udience. *ccordin% to Lon%inus< t e $(e!sur!b(e sens!tion $roduced by $oetry ste)s fro) t e $!ssion!te fee(in%< nobi(ity< !nd %r!ndeur of t ou% t< but !(so fro) t e )!stery of t e )!ny de>ices of sty(e !nd )et od< !cute sensiti>ity to t e ;u!(ities of -ords !nd $otenti!(ities of

20

Part One

i)!%ery< !nd t e $roc(i>ity for r yt ) !nd c!dence< sonority !nd roundness< !ur!( !rc itecture !nd f(uency< e>inced by t e -or@. .!rry ?(!)ires e:$(!ins:
W !t for t e )odern re!der differenti!tes Lon%inus fro) is $redecessors is is e!%erness to $ut is fin%er on t ose ;u!(ities of i)!%in!ti>e (iter!ture - ic resist codific!tion by ru(e !nd $rece$t< !nd - ic c!nnot be !tt!ined by tec nic!( e:$ertise !(one. .e is sensiti>e to t e need for indi>idu!( %enius in t e $oet. It !s to be )!tc ed by ;u!(ity of >ision !nd underst!ndin%< !nd )!rried to ! fineness !nd %r!ndeur of $erce$tion - ic !>e ! )or!( !nd s$iritu!( !s -e(( !s inte((ectu!( st!tus. (13)

Lon%inus=s t eory co)es c(oser to 20t 6century $r!ctic!(< or for)!(ist< criticis) t !n it does to t !t of t e inter>enin% centuries< !(t ou% it -!s< in its o-n -!y< )ore inf(uenti!( t !n< s!y< Horace=s (3568 ?") Ars Poetica -it its misce utile dulci doctrine !nd its $(e! for decor"m< $ro$riety< !nd !rtistry. .or!ce=s re(!ti>e(y (i)ited fo((o-in% )i% t be $!rt(y o-ed to is e$ist(e=s infor)!( c !r!cter. *s ?(!)ires e:$(!ins< 5It is !n e$ist(e< !nd its c !r) (ies in its c!su!( !ir !nd inconse;uenti!( !$$ro!c . Its effecti>eness (ies $!rt(y in its i((ustr!ti>e c(!rity !nd $!rt(y in its sc!ttered !$ot e%)s. & ese !$ot e%)s %i>e s$!r@(e to t e te:t !nd t ey re$resent its )!Ior critic!( i((u)in!tions for t e )odern re!der7 (1/). & e one suc )!:i) t !t best su)s u$ .or!ce=s creed is: 5& e secret of %ood -ritin% is sound Iud%e)ent.7
Q: .o )ou remember an) other ma0ims from 'ora!es Ars Poeti!a?vi

.or!ce be(on%s to ! different br!nc of (iter!ry t eory fro) t !t of mimesis. & e study of rhetoric in "(!ssic!( ti)es -!s to e:ercise ! stron% inf(uence in t e #idd(e *%es !nd t en %r!du!((y f!de fro) >ie-. 0 etoric or or!tory defined itse(f !s t e !rt of c(e!r e:$osition !nd $ersu!si>e re!sonin%< but its )!in i)$ort!nce to (iter!ry t eory is %i>en by t e f!ct t !t it re%!rded $oetry !s ! function of (!n%u!%e !nd focused on t e ;u!(ities of r yt )< c!dence< co erence< order. In !ncient Hreece< its re$resent!ti>es -ere t e So$ ists< - ose t eories !>e not sur>i>ed< $!rt(y bec!use t ey -ere o$$osed by Socr!tes !nd t en crus in%(y defe!ted by '(!to. In *u%ust!n 0o)e< on t e ot er !nd< or!tory -!s e(d in i% estee)< !nd its $ro$onents !nd $r!ctitioners for) ! >ery i((ustrious (ist: #!rcus &u((ius "icero (1036/3 ?")< S!((ust (8363/ ?")< Qu(ius "!es!r (1006// ?")< Ruinti(i!n (356c.95 *D)< t e e(der Senec! (c.55 ?"6c.37 *D< f!t er of t e youn%er $ i(oso$ er Senec!)< 'etronius (d. 35 *D)< etc. & e best @no-n of t e) is $rob!b(y "icero (!.@.!. &u((y)< - ose inf(uence -!s $ri)!ri(y !s ! )ode( of e(e%!nce< (ucidity !nd e(o;uence< !(t ou% e !(so -rote tr!cts on t e !rt of or!tory. .o-e>er< to-!rds t e end of t e first century *D< !s or!tory -!s turnin% into t e $r!ctice of dec(!)!tion (i.e.< ! -e((6re e!rsed e:ercise in istrionics< !nd t erefore ! for) of entert!in)ent r!t er t !n ! $r!ctic!( disci$(ine)< it -!s dee)ed !rtifici!( !nd dec!dent !nd %r!du!((y !b!ndoned. '(!tonic $ i(oso$ y !d !n inde(ib(e i)$!ct on t in@in% t rou% out t e

Part One

21

fo((o-in% )i((enni!. In t e t ird century *D< t e 1%y$ti!n Plotin"s (c.2056270) t!u% t 0eo%latonism in 0o)e !nd est!b(is ed t !t !rt is not !n i)it!tion of !n i)it!tion< but of t e -or(d of Ide!s itse(f. & e !rtist !s in is )ind ! conce$tion of t e ?e!uty !nd 9nity t !t !re t e !ttributes of t e etern!( +ne of ?ein%< !nd in cre!tin% t e -or@ of !rt e $roIects t !t conce$tion onto is )ediu) (stone< (!n%u!%e etc.)< !i)in% to $roduce $(e!sure< not trut . Fet t e e)er%in% " risti!nity -!s !(re!dy e)$ !sisin% ot er inte((ectu!( $reoccu$!tions< its focus bein% e:c(usi>e(y on )or!(ity !nd t e conte)$(!tion !nd -ors i$ of Hod in >ie- of t e ne- need to e:!)ine t e !>enues to )or!( !nd s$iritu!( e!(t . *s .!rry ?(!)ires $uts it< 5We )!y t!@e St A"g"stine (35/6/30) !s re$resent!ti>e of t e istoric!( de>e(o$)ent - ic -!s to $us (iter!ry criticis) out of t e do)!in of inte((ectu!( (ife for se>er!( centuries7 (28). *ccordin% to *u%ustine< e>ery )o)ent s$ent in enIoy)ent of !rtef!cts is ! )o)ent t!@en !-!y fro) t e true $ursuit of t e (o>e for Hod. It -!s not unti( t e 13 t century t !t !not er 4oundin% 4!t er of t e " risti!n " urc )!de it $rofit!b(e !%!in to $ursue t e conte)$(!tion of be!uty. Thomas A)"inas (c.122/67/) does not tre!t of !rt !t !((< (et !(one of $oetry. In is >ie-< be!uty is !s fund!)ent!( !n !ttribute of Hod=s cre!tion !s %ood is< but - i(e t e (!tter is t e obIect of desire (%ood is 5- !t !(( t in%s desire<7 s!ys *;uin!s)< t e be!utifu( is t e obIect of non6$ossessi>e @no-(ed%e. & is distinction o$ened t e -!y for serious reconsider!tion of " risti!n !est etic.

22

Part One

Lect"re *** The H"manist Heritage

1n%(is criticis) c!n be s!id to be%in -it t e ,ener!b(e ?ede (3736735)< !(t ou% e did not contribute !nyt in% ne- to t e $ i(oso$ ic!( discussions !round t e n!ture of (iter!ture. .is boo@s ( De Arte %etrica, On .igures and Tropes of Holy Writ) focus on distin%uis in% !nd c(!ssifyin% (iter!ry %enres< sty(istic de>ices !nd $rosodic e(e)ents t !t -ere !(re!dy in use. .is )!in contribution -!s to re>i>e t e interest in L!tin $oetry !nd !$$(y critic!( t eory to t e boo@s of t e ?ib(e. #ost of t e subse;uent 1n%(is sc o(!rs -e(( into t e 0en!iss!nce insisted on t e usefu(ness of (e!rnin% !nd underst!ndin% t e ?ib(e !nd on $reser>in% t e connection bet-een 1n%(!nd !nd t e !ncient L!tin cu(ture. & eir (ist inc(udes suc $resti%ious n!)es !s *(cuin (c.735680/< " !r(e)!%ne=s !d>iser on re(i%ious !nd educ!tion!( )!tters)< Jin% *(fred (8/9699)< Qo n of S!(isbury (c.1115680)< Sir & o)!s 1(yot (1/90615/3)< !nd Sir 0o%er *sc !) (1513638< Rueen 1(iE!bet t e 4irst=s tutor). & ey !(( s !re ! co))on concern for t e enric )ent !nd $reser>!tion of t e 1n%(is (!n%u!%e !nd t e bro!denin% of $eo$(e=s )inds t rou% t e re!din% of t e -or@s of t e $!st. Suc u)!nist sc o(!rs !s 1(yot !nd *sc !) -ere @no-n !s #d"cationists< re%!rd(ess of t e s !r$ differences in t eir !$$ro!c to t e $ro$er obIect of (e!rnin%.
Remember? The main !on!erns of the Renaissan!e !riti!s (ere8 the nature of poetr) ($ivine inspiration? 5+ill? 5o!ial gra!e? ;t!." the fun!tion of poetr) in so!iet) (to tea!h to move to entertain" the fun!tion of the poet in so!iet) (bar$ !hroni!ler !reator prophet tea!her !orrupter of moralit)" 6the battle of the an!ients an$ the mo$erns7 (the !ontrovers) over the superiorit) of an!ient literature or of !ontemporar) pro$u!tions" $i!tion (the !hoi!e of (or$s" $is!ourse (the !hoi!e of sub9e!t matter" $e!orum (the a$aptation of st)le to the sub9e!t matter" the !omparative merits of rh)me$ verse vs. blan+ verse the !omparative merits of ;nglish poetr) vs. Italian (or+s

*+ The (enaissance1 or. Classicism

Remember? The <riti!s of the Renaissan!e !an roughl) be $ivi$e$ into Educationists (5ir Roger As!ham 5ir Thomas ;l)ot 5ir Thomas ,orus (,ore" et!." Puritans (5tephen 4osson et!." an$ Courtiers (5ir Philip 5i$ne) ;$mun$ 5penser et!.".

& e si:teent -!s t e first century of t e $rinted boo@< !nd t e 1(iE!bet !n

Part One

2"

*%e -!s ! co)$!r!ti>e(y $ro(ific one in -ritin% !nd $ub(is in%< )ost of - ic -!s re(i%ious or educ!ti>e in $ur$ort< -ritten eit er in L!tin or in 1n%(is . #!ny of t ese boo@s -ere t e $roduction of $resti%ious $rofessors te!c in% !t +:ford< "!)brid%e !nd t e so6c!((ed Inns of "ourt (institutions of bot t e (!- !nd educ!tion) in London. Inf(uenced by bot t e u)!nist e:!(t!tion of c(!ssic!( (!n%u!%es !nd t e 0en!iss!nce desire for etern!( f!)e< )!ny 0en!iss!nce sc o(!rs (*sc !)< & o)!s #ore< etc.) -ere sus$icious of (iter!ry $roductions -ritten in t e unst!b(e >ern!cu(!rs. *t t e s!)e ti)e< t e re(i%ious 0efor)!tion $(e!ded for ! -ider !ccessibi(ity of t e -ritten -ord t !t cont!)in!ted t e $rof!ne !s -e(( !s t e s!cred te:t. & e contro>ersies bred by t ese o$$osin% tendencies -ere i% (y se)in!(< !s c!n be seen by co)$!rin% 0o%er *sc !)=s The -cholemaster (1370) -it Sir ' i(i$ Sidney=s Defence of Poesy (-ritten 1379< $ub(. 1395 in t-o eds.)< or t e (!tter te:t -it its 'urit!n counter$!rt< Ste$ en Hosson=s -chool of A#use (1379)< or e>en t e >!rious 1duc!tionists. Sir & o)!s 1(yot< for inst!nce< considered t !t !(( (iter!ture< e>en t e b!-diest< c!n ser>e !s ! (esson in )or!(ity by educ!tin% t e re!der to )!@e )or!( c oices. 0o%er *sc !)< on t e contr!ry< insists t !t on(y t e finest of !ncient -ritin% be used !s !n obIect of i)it!tion bot in ter)s of r etoric !nd )or!(s. *s )ore is co)$osed in t e 1n%(is (!n%u!%e< t ere is !n incre!sin% nu)ber of metate&ts (i.e.< te:ts !bout (iter!ture) de!(in% -it t e $rinci$(es of $oetic co)$osition. Suc !re t e tre!tises of Heor%e H!scoi%ne (c.153/677) (5"ert!yne Words of Instruction "oncernin% t e #!@in% of ,erse or 0 y)e in 1n%(is <7 1575)< Jin% Q!)es ,I of Scot(!nd (5*ne S ort &re!tise "onteinin% So)e 0eu(is !nd "!ute(is to be +bser>it !nd 1sc e-it in Scotts 'oesie<7 158/)< t e )!ssi>e boo@ The Arte of *nglish Poesie (1589) !ttributed to 0ic !rd 'utten !) (c.1529691)< !nd t e (ess $ertinent Discourse of *nglish Poetry (1583) by Wi((i!) Webbe (15386 91). 'utten !) es$eci!((y is o$en to t e inno>!tions !nd )erits of 1n%(is $oetry< !nd e $r!ises Wy!tt !nd Surrey for !d!$tin% t e It!(i!n for) of t e sonnet !nd $o(is in% t e 1n%(is (!n%u!%e< " !ucer for t e 5%r!>e !nd st!te(y7 )etre in Troilus and Criseyde (!(t ou% e does not !$$reci!te The Canter#ury Tales)< !(on%side 0!(e% < Dyer< !nd Rueen 1(iE!bet I. & rou% out t e 0en!iss!nce< des$ite t e %re!t de>e(o$)ent of ! -ide >!riety of (iter!ry %enres< (iter!ture -!s re%!rded !s !n !dIunct !cti>ity< ! $!rt of t e educ!tion $rocess C -itness "!sti%(ione=s 'l Cortegiano (1528< tr!ns(. by & o)!s .oby in 1531) !nd *sc !)=s -cholemaster. #oreo>er< educ!tion itse(f -!s reser>ed on(y for t e i% er c(!sses< !nd es$eci!((y for t eir )!(e )e)bers i$. .ence< t ere -ere co)$!r!ti>e(y fe- re!ders !nd $ub(is ers of boo@s by our st!nd!rds< !nd no $rofession!( )en or -o)en of (etters. 1(iE!bet !n -riters of r!n@< (i@e Sidney< t ou% t of t e)se(>es !s courtiers< st!tes)en< !nd (!ndo-nersG t ey considered $oetry ! soci!( %r!ce !nd ! court(y $!sti)e. "onse;uent(y< t e $ri)!ry !i) of t e c!refu( study of t e c(!ssics -!s t e !$$ro$ri!tion of t eir resoundin% r etoric !nd %r!cefu( (!n%u!%e. '!r!do:ic!((y< ne>ert e(ess< 0en!iss!nce -riters -ere not s(!>is i)it!tors of t e !ncients. 0!t er< t ey (oo@ed to c(!ssic!( !nd "ontinent!( -or@s !s )ode(s to (e!rn fro)< e)u(!te< tr!nsfor)<

2/

Part One

!nd if $ossib(e sur$!ss. & e (e>e( of t eir e:$ertise in ! >!riety of fie(ds -!s si)$(y !stoundin%< !nd t ey >!(ued !n intric!cy of desi%n !nd e(!bor!teness of $!ttern in r etoric. & e first tru(y $ertinent !nd so$ istic!ted tre!tise on (iter!ture in 1n%(is is Sir ' i(i$ Sidney=s The Defence of Poesie/ An Apologie for Poetrie (1595)< - ic )!r@s ! return to t e issue of t e n!ture of $oetry !nd its ro(e in society. Its -ritin% -!s $ro)$ted by ! $!)$ (et entit(ed The -chool of A#use (1579) by Ste$ en Hosson (155/6132/)< - o !d t e b!d t!ste !nd $oor Iud%e)ent to dedic!te is 'urit!n di!tribe !%!inst $oetry to Sir ' i(i$ Sidney< one of t e %re!test $oets of t e ti)e. & e (!tter -!s not t e on(y -riter to ret!(i!te: & o)!s Lod%e (155861325) -!s t e first to re$(y in is o-n Defence of Poetry (1579)< !nd 1d)und S$enser (c.1552699) !tt!c@ed it in ! (etter to ! friend. Fet< !s ?(!)ires notes< 5&o turn to Sidney=s -or@ fro) t e -or@s $re>ious(y de!(t -it in t is c !$ter is to enter ! different -or(d7 (55). Sir Phili% Sidney (155/61583) & e first 1n%(is 0en!iss!nce $oet of note< ' i(i$ Sidney -!s -ide(y re%!rded in is o-n d!y !s !n ide!( 0en!iss!nce %ent(e)!n. ?orn into ! nob(e f!)i(y in Jent< e studied !t "!)brid%e< bec!)e inti)!te -it Sir 4u(@e Hre>i((e !nd Wi((i!) "!)den !nd Ioined t e *reo$!%us (! c(ub for)ed c ief(y for t e $ur$ose of n!tur!(isin% t e c(!ssic!( )etres in 1n%(is >erse< - ic inc(uded S$enser< 4u(@e Hre>i((e< .!r>ey< Dyer etc.). .is de!t in t e S$!nis W!r s$!r@ed %ener!( )ournin% in 1n%(!nd !nd -!s e>o@ed in e(e%ies by S$enser< Q!)es ,I< #ic !e( Dr!yton !nd ot ers. &o is !d)irin% conte)$or!ries< Sidney -!s t e 1n%(is )ode( of t e uni>ers!( 0en!iss!nce )!n: ! %ent(e)!n of u)!nist educ!tion co))itted to bot t e !cti>e (ife of >irtue !nd t e !rtistic !nd $!triotic ide!( of cre!tin% ! (iter!ture to st!nd beside t e %re!t >ern!cu(!rs of 1uro$e. .e defended 1n%(is (iter!ture !%!inst t e !tt!c@s of t e 'urit!ns - o< in !ddition to considerin% it d!n%erous to " risti!n )or!(ity< o$$osed Sund!y $erfor)!nces !nd t e en!ct)ent of fe)inine ro(es by )!(e !ctors. Sidney !(so defended (iter!ture !%!inst '(!tonic !tt!c@s on its n!ture !s ! $ernicious !nd use(ess i)it!tion of !n i)it!tion. *s D!ic es $oints out< Sidney i)se(f -!s bot ! 'urit!n !nd ! neo6 '(!tonist (! u)!nist)< !s -e(( !s ! $oet< !nd t erefore 5A Bis defence of $oetry -!s ! nob(e !tte)$t to co)bine !(( t ese $ositions7 (70). *s t e editors of The 0orton Anthology $oint out<
Sidney=s Defence of Poesy is t e on(y )!Ior -or@ of (iter!ry criticis) in 13 t 6century 1n%(!nd< ! $eriod durin% - ic It!(y !nd 4r!nce $roduced (!r%e nu)bers of critic!( tre!tises< e!>i(y inf(uenced by *ristot(e=s Poetics. NSidney=s en%!%in% tr!ct is i% (y ec(ectic< dr!-in% to%et er !est etic $rece$ts fro) se>er!( tr!ditions !nd underscorin% t ose t !t !re of $ri)!ry i)$ort!nce to t e 1(iE!bet !ns: ide!( i)it!tion< )or!( te!c in%< !nd decoru). (*br!)s et !(. /05)

Sidney fo((o-s *ristot(e in definin% $oetry !s !n i)it!tion of u)!n n!ture< but (in@s mimesis to is o-n >ie- of t e $oet !s )!@er (S H@. poietes)< - ose !cti>ity

Part One

2.

ref(ects (i.e.< )irrors or i)it!tes< but !(so !nnounces C S L!t. !ates M $ro$ et) t !t of t e Di>ine "re!tor. & e $oet i)it!tes not t e re!(< i)$erfect n!ture -e @no-< but 5(ifted u$ -it t e >i%our of is o-n in>ention<7 e i)it!tes !n ide!( n!ture. Sidney !(so )!@es (!r%e c(!i)s for t e did!ctic ro(e of $oetryG e in>o@es .or!ce=s for)u(! t !t $oetry te!c es by de(i% tin%< but e)$ !siEes its r etoric!( $o-er to )o>e us to be >irtuous. .e t erefore i% (i% ts t e i)$ort!nce of !d!$tin% subIect )!tter to %enre !nd sty(e C t e ide! of decorum so de!r to t e c(!ssicists C !s $!rt of is so)e- !t si)$(istic )or!( did!cticis). & e Defence co>ers so)e of t e )!in !est etic $rinci$(es of t e 0en!iss!nce:
t e de(i% t inNO!bund!nce= of -ords< $oetic fi%ures !nd orn!)entsG t e c(ose re(!tion of $oetry !nd r etoricG t e concern -it (e>e(s of sty(e ( i% < )idd(e !nd (o-)G !nd t e continuin% i)$ort!nce of !((e%ory !s ! )e!ns to te!c )or!( trut s !s -e(( !s to su%%est t e )ysterious !n!(o%ies !nd sy)bo(ic re(!tions i$s t !t $er)e!te !nd order Hod=s uni>erse. (*br!)s et !(. /05) Q: <an )ou !ome up (ith a goo$ $efinition of $e!orum an$ e0emplif) it?vii

& ou% >erse -ritin%< !nd es$eci!((y sonneteerin%< -!s ! soci!( %r!ce for Sidney< $oetry itse(f -!s not ! $!sti)e or !n e:ercise of wit: it -!s ! >ery serious for) of !rt )e!nt to instruct< de(i% t< !nd )o>e. .is $oint of >ie- is c(e!r(y e:$ressed in An Apologie for Poetrie< - ic is re)!r@!b(e for t e c(!rity of !r%u)ent< r!n%e of sc o(!rs i$ !nd i)!%in!ti>e >ision. 5Ide!s f(o- fro) is $en. *$t i((ustr!tions< i)!%in!ti>e turns of t ou% t !nd ne!t di!(ectic!( t rusts cro-d is $!%es. *nd t e $rose< (!r%e(y free of !rid )odis tur%idities !nd su$erf(uous contri>!nces< c!rries t e re!der e!%er(y for-!rd7 (?(!)ires 55). .is !r%u)ents for ! ne- ty$e of $oetry !re f!s ioned !round t e $ersu!si>e for)u(!e of t e se>en6 $!rt c(!ssic!( or!tion< !nd )!ny of t e) !re in (ine -it t e c(!ssic!( L!tin r etoric!( tr!dition (t e e)$ !sis on decoru)< on t e in!d>is!bi(ity of )i:in% t e %enres< es$eci!((y tr!%edy !nd co)edyG t e .or!ti!n misce utile dulci etc.). *(t ou% *ristot(e=s Poetics cou(d !>e ser>ed !s !n effecti>e )ode( for t is defence of $oetry< its inf(uence is r!t er no)in!(< )ost(y due to ! >ery restricti>e underst!ndin% of t !t c(!ssic!( te:t t !t !d to do -it its redisco>ery< tr!ns(!tion !nd editin% by t e It!(i!n u)!nists in t e si:teent century. In Sidney=s boo@< t e $oet is t e first $ur>eyor of @no-(ed%e< tr!dition!((y e(d in >ery i% estee) in c(!ssic!( ci>i(is!tionsG su$erior to )ere !n!(ysts of f!((en n!ture (i@e t e )or!( $ i(oso$ er !nd t e istori!n< t e $oet=s )ind !(one c!n %(i)$se t e etern!( ty$es of 5>irtues< >ices or - !t e(se7 t !t under(ie t e -or(d of !$$e!r!nce. & ese >isions of t e ide!( t e $oet t en s !$es in >erse< so t !t errin% )en )!y be de(i% ted !nd i)$ro>ed by t e)< e>en if t ey c!nnot fu((y !tt!in to suc e:ce((ence t e)se(>es. In ot er -ords< by f!s ionin% e:e)$(!ry fi%ures< t e $oet in!ents ! 5%o(den7 -or(d for our $rofit !nd de(i% t. .is -or@ is ! f!it fu( co$y of t e etern!( >erities r!t er t !n of incident!( !ctu!(ities< of - !t should be< fro) ! )or!( $oint of >ie- (r!t er t !n t e *ristote(i!n 5s ou(d7 of $rob!bi(ity or >erisi)i(itude).

22

Part One

& is is t e $rocess Sidney out(ines in is O$ro$osition= C t e core of is !r%u)ent C - en e defines is subIect t us: 5 Poesie t erefore is !n !rte of i)it!tion< for so Aristotle ter)et it in is -ord %imesis C t !t is to s!y< ! re$resentin%< counterfettin%< or fi%urin% foort C to s$e!@ )et!$ oric!((y< ! s$e!@in% $icture: -it t is end< to te!c !nd de(i% t.7 & e e)$ !sis< !s t is definition su%%ests t rou% t e t!uto(o%ic!( tr!ns(!tion of mimesis< is on t e contri>ed !nd in>ented n!ture of t e co$y< - ic < t erefore< )!@es no c(!i)s to trut < !nd c!nnot< conse;uent(y< in %ood f!it < be !ccused of (yin% or decei>in%. Sidney does not see) to be !-!re ere t !t e is !ddressin% '(!to=s )!in obIection to $oetry (its second6 !nd i)it!tion condition)< !nd r!t er t !n insist< in '(!tonic ter)s< on t e Ide!s or >erities be ind t e i)it!tion< e e)$ !sises t e f!ct t !t (iter!ture offers !n alternati!e to re!(ity< !nd ! su$erior one< !t t !t. .e !(so su%%ests t !t by de(i% tin% t e !udience -it is i)!%es of $erfection !nd %oetic 2"stice< t e $oet sti)u(!tes t e) to i)it!te (iter!ture< r!t er t !n consider (iter!ture !n i)it!tion of re!(ity. & e -ord Sidney e)$(oys is t e .or!ti!n 5)o>e<7 t ou% used ere )ore !)bi%uous(y so !s to su%%est not on(y t e !rousin% of e)otion (to - ic '(!to !d obIected so strenuous(y)< but es$eci!((y $ersu!sion< en(istin% $!ssion on t e side of >irtue. & e $oet does t !t by e)$(oyin% ! (i>e(y !nd $!ssion!te sty(e< -e(( e:e)$(ified by Sidney i)se(f in is ess!y. Sidney e:ercised !n e:tr!ordin!ry inf(uence on t e $oets of is o-n !nd t e fo((o-in% %ener!tions< ei% tened< $er !$s< by t e ro)!ntic c !r!cter of is $erson!( istory: e effecti>e(y s !$ed t e course of 0en!iss!nce (iter!ture in 1n%(!nd. .is )!ssi>e $rose $!stor!(< Arcadia< introduced ro)!nce< ! %enre of t e It!(i!n 0en!iss!nce< to 1n%(!nd. It -!s ! u%e success< -!s -ide(y inf(uenti!(< !nd e($ed ins$ire ! nu)ber of S !@es$e!re=s -or@s< not!b(y (ing Lear, The T1o 2entlemen of )erona< As 3ou Li e 't< !nd t e ro)!nces. Sidney=s >o(u)e of sonnets< Astrophil and -tella, is considered to be t e best re$resent!ti>e of t !t %enre in t e 0en!iss!nce. & us< in !ddition to fi% tin% $oetry=s detr!ctors on t eir o-n %round C t !t of )or!( te!c in% C is Defence of Poesie !(so !s t e !ut ority of !>in% been -ritten in fu(( !-!reness of t e condition of t e $oet< fro) t e inside< !s it -ere. D!ic es conc(udes:
*ristot(e=s Poetics !d been ! dec(!r!tion of inde$endence for $oetry !s -e(( !s ! Iustific!tion of itG Sidney is content to !c ie>e t e (!tter !t t e e:$ense of t e for)er. *nd if C -it so)e Iustice C -e t in@ Sidney=s $osition n!T>e< -e )i% t -e(( re)e)ber t !t fro) is d!y to ours t e >!st )!Iority of re!ders of i)!%in!ti>e (iter!ture !>e t!@en subst!nti!((y is >ie- !nd %ener!((y !$$(ied it -it (ess cunnin% !nd sensiti>ity. (72)

Sidney3s Contem%oraries1 The Late (enaissance & ere -!s )uc discussion durin% t e 1(iE!bet !n *%e of )!tters concernin% t e function< t e $ro$er $ro>ince (disco"rse)< !nd t e $ro$er for) (decoru)) of $oetry. #!ny i)$ort!nt $oets bec!)e in>o(>ed C !)on% t e)< 1d)und S$enser< S!)ue( D!nie(< & o)!s "!)$ion etc. #uc of t is deb!te fruit(ess(y $i>oted !round t e contro>ersy of c(!ssic!( )etres in 1n%(is (Sidney i)se(f fe(t

Part One

2,

co)$e((ed to !ddress t !t issue in is Defence). 4!r )ore interestin% !re t e ess!ys !$$ended by tr!ns(!tors to t eir 1n%(is >ersions of c(!ssic!( !nd )odern )!ster$ieces< suc !s for inst!nce Sir Qo n .!rin%ton=s renderin% of *riosto=s Orlando .urioso (1591)< & o)!s Dr!nt=s tr!ns(!tions fro) .or!ce< or Heor%e " !$)!n=s >ersion of .o)er=s 'liad (1578). Fet $oets -ere not t e on(y ones concerned -it (iter!ry )!tters. & e $ i(oso$ er Sir Francis $acon (153161323)< in t e second boo@ of is !)bitious -or@ The Ad!ancement of Learning (1303 !nd 1305)< 5!r%ues t !t t e t ree $!rts of )!n=s underst!ndin% !re )e)ory< imagination< !nd re!son<7 !nd t !t none of t ese suffices !(one.
.istory re(!tes to is )e)ory< $oetry to is i)!%in!tion< !nd $ i(oso$ y to is re!son. N Since t e i)!%in!tion is not Otied to t e (!-s of )!tter<= $oetry !s suc (icence t !t it )!y O!t $(e!sure Ioin t !t - ic 2!ture !t se>ered< !nd se>er t !t - ic 2!ture !t Ioined.= In res$ect to sty(e< 'oetry is ! tec nic!( )!tter be(on%in% to O!rts of s$eec .= In res$ect to subst!nce< $oetry is O41IH21D .IS&+0F<= - ic c!n be $resented eit er in $rose or in >erse.N 'oetry fei%ns !cts !nd e>ents t !t !re O%re!ter !nd )ore eroic!(= t !n istory c!n su$$(y< !nd distributes re-!rd !nd retribution to >irtue !nd >ice )ore Iust(y t !n (ife itse(f< !nd )ore in !ccord!nce -it di>ine 'ro>idence. 'oetry is Iud%ed to !>e Oso)e $!rtici$!tion of di>ineness= bec!use of t e -!y it e:!(ts !nd fu(fi(s t e !s$ir!tions of t e )ind< - i(e Ore!son dot buc@(e !nd bot e )ind unto t e n!ture of t in%s.= (?(!)ires 33)

?!con=s )et odic!(< !()ost $ed!ntic consider!tions !nd c(!ssific!tions of $oetry )!y )!@e it sound )ore (i@e ! cr!ft t !n !n !rt. *(t ou% !>in% ! direct st!@e in< !nd ! )ore $!ssion!te res$onse to< (iter!ture< $en 4onson=s (157261337) sc!ttered t eorisin% is !()ost !s se>ere(y or%!nised. In is >!rious $ro(o%ues< $ref!ces< !nd dedic!tory e$ist(es< t e (!tter $(e!ds for ! dr!)! t !t strict(y obser>es t e c(!ssic!( unities of ti)e< $(!ce !nd $(ot< !nd< es$eci!((y in tr!%edy< 5trut of *r%u)ent< di%nity of 'ersons< %r!>ity !nd ei% t of 1(ocution< fu((ness !nd fre;uency of Sentence7 ('ref!ce to -e$anus). .is )!in $reoccu$!tion is -it t e )or!(isin% function of (iter!ture< !nd e insists t !t on(y restr!int< trut fu(ness to n!ture (i.e.< re!(is)) !nd ! syste)!tic !rr!n%e)ent of t e )!teri!( c!n fu(fi( it. *s ?(!)ires $uts it< 5A Be -!s ! neoc(!ssicist so!@ed in t e (iter!ry tr!ditions of t e $!st< yet so !(i>e to t e conte)$or!ry -or(d t !t in is co)edies t e $ortr!y!( of 1(iE!bet !n (ife< >u(%!r< boisterous !nd sour(y s!tiric!(< t robs -it >it!(ity7 (33). .is co))on$(!ce boo@ Tim#er, or Disco!eries (-ritten bet-een 1320 !nd 1335)< !(t ou% e!>i(y inf(uenced by c(!ssics !nd c(!ssicists< e>inces ! >ery $o-erfu( $erson!( st!)$. 5& e >oice is t !t of !boundin% confidence< of $ers$icuity !nd co))onsense7 (3/). *t t e s!)e ti)e< t e boo@ is fi((ed -it t ou% tfu( consider!tions of is conte)$or!ries (S !@es$e!re< Sidney< Donne !re !)on% t e ones e $r!ises)< !s -e(( !s defences of is o-n $(!ys.
Q1: What are his !riteria for praising 5ha+espeare in 6To the ,emor) of ,) =elove$ the Poet ,r William 5ha+espeare>7? Q2: Remember the Prologue to ?olpone? What (ere some of the issues ta!+le$ there

2-

Part One

b) @onson?

*(t ou% (ess ori%in!( !nd inf(uenti!( t !n Sidney< Qonson introduced )!ny of t e recurrent fe!tures of future criticis). & e tone of se(f6ri% teousness !nd t e erudition of t e literary dictator beco)e reco%nis!b(e in Qo n Dryden !nd S!)ue( Qo nsonG is )oder!tion !nd co))onsense set ! -ort y e:!)$(e for future %ener!tions of neoc(!ssicists. *nd is su$er(!ti>e $r!ise of S !@es$e!re=s %r!ce !nd e!se -it (!n%u!%e< !s -e(( !s of is t orou% underst!ndin% of u)!n n!ture< !(on%side t e !c@no-(ed%e)ent of is -i(fu( i%nor!nce of c(!ssic!( order !nd $oetic Iustice -ere to beco)e (eit)oti>s of S !@es$e!re!n criticis) in t e ne:t t ree centuries.
Remember? =en @onson (as the first professional (riter i.e. he (as able to ma+e a living b) his pen being also the first (riter to publish his !omplete (or+ in his lifetime. 'is au$a!it) foretells the professionalisation of (riting after the Restoration (hen (riters are no longer patronise$ b) the ri!h aristo!ra!) an$ are therefore free to !hoose their sub9e!t matters an$ attitu$es.

**+ The (estoration1 or. 0eoclassicism In t e t-o dec!des t !t fo((o-ed !fter ?en Qonson=s de!t < re(i%ious strife !nd ci>i( tension< !s -e(( !s t e do)in!tion of t e 'urit!n et os< -ere not conduci>e to )uc $ertinent (iter!ry deb!te. *fter t e 0estor!tion of t e Stu!rt )on!rc y (1330)< (iter!ry $roducti>eness returned< but t e 4renc f!s ion -!s (e!din% t e -!y< in criticis) !s )uc !s in t e !rts !nd entert!in)ents of t e reinst!ted court !nd !ristocr!cy. & e 4renc neoc(!ssicist 2ico(!s ?oi(e!u (133361711) -on ! 1uro$e!n re$ut!tion -it is boo@ L4art poeti5ue (137/) by settin% t e i% est >!(ue on t e ro(e of re!son in $oetry. 2onet e(ess< t e )or!( !nd t eo(o%ic!( stru%%(e bet-een t e 'urit!ns !nd t e *n%(ic!ns continued in t e re!() of (iter!ture !nd in co))ent!ry u$on it. .ere is o- ?(!)ires describes t e !%e:
In t e course of t e se>enteent century< t e concerns of t ose - o $!ssed Iud%e)ent on (iter!ture >!ried enor)ous(y. In t e e!r(y dec!des< !s t eo(o%ic!( contro>ersy %!t ered force in $ub(ic (ife< -e n!tur!((y find !n:iety to Iustify $oetry by its educ!ti>e usefu(ness. We e!r c(!i)s for t e $oet !s $ i(oso$ er !nd s!%e - ic see) to !ntici$!te S e((ey. *n e:!(ted notion of t e " risti!n $oet is e:$ounded by A.enryB 0eyno(ds !nd AQo nB #i(ton< !nd touc ed on (ess $ersu!si>e(y by ASir Wi((i!)B D!>en!nt !nd A*br! !)B "o-(ey. & en t e res$ecti>e ro(es of f!ncy !nd of re!son !re dis$uted. & e res$ecti>e !ut ority of t e !ncients< of t e 4renc < !nd of t e 1(iE!bet !ns is brou% t into ;uestion. So is t e res$ecti>e >!(ue of sty(istic $(!inness or of orn!)ent< of r y)e or of b(!n@ >erse< of t e cou$(et or of t e ode. S ou(d t ere be ru(es or no ru(esD S ou(d co)edy be )i:ed -it tr!%edyD Is t e $oet=s duty to instruct or to de(i% tD (39670)

Indeed t e !%e -!s ric in contro>ersy< )uc of - ic -!s s$!r@ed by t e re(!tions i$ of $oetry eit er to " risti!nity or to !ncient !ntecedents< !nd -!s

Part One

2+

initi!ted on 4renc soi(. It se(do) !$$ened t !t t e discussion -!s disent!n%(ed fro) t e inte((ectu!(< )or!( !nd s$iritu!( function of (iter!ture< !nd fe- -ere !s dee$(y !-!re of t e fund!)ent!( !utono)y of t e !est etic !s Qo n Dryden -!s. 4ohn 'ryden (133161700) .e -!s not on(y one of t e )ost i% (y !$$reci!ted critics of is ti)e< but !(so one of t e )ost intense(y in>o(>ed in t e deb!tes concernin% t e n!ture !nd function of (iter!ture< !nd es$eci!((y of dr!)!tic $oetry< !s c!n be seen fro) is nu)erous (-ritten) di!(o%ues -it conte)$or!ry critics. .is )uc 6ce(ebr!ted *ssay of Dramatic Poesy (1338) is on(y one suc inst!nce< !nd it -!s fo((o-ed in t e s!)e ye!r by t e $ub(ic!tion of A Defence of an *ssay of Dramatic Poesy. & ese< !s -e(( !s ! $(et or! of $ro(o%ues< $ref!tory ess!ys !nd !$o(o%ies< )!r@ t e e>o(ution not on(y of is $erson!( $references< con>ictions !nd $rinci$(es< but of t ose of t e !%e. .is *ssay of Dramatic Poesy !)ounts to ! defence of $oetry !nd ! so(ution to t e '(!tonic di(e))!. *ccordin% to Dryden< %oetry is 5* Iust !nd (i>e(y i)!%e of u)!n n!ture< re$resentin% its $!ssions !nd u)ours< !nd t e c !n%es of fortune to - ic it is subIect< for t e de(i% t !nd instruction of )!n@ind.7 In ot er -ords< $oetry re>e!(s c !r!cter by re!(istic!((y $resentin% it in !ction< !nd t us instructs )!n@ind in $syc o(o%y !s )uc !s in )or!(s. * century !fter Sidney< t e e)$ !sis is no (on%er on (iter!ture=s ro(e to e:$(ic!te )or!( $ i(oso$ y !s )uc !s on con>eyin% e)$iric!( @no-(ed%e !bout t e re!( -or(d (see D!ic es 7/675). In t is< Dryden is ! )!n of is neoc(!ssic!( !%e. & rou% )uc of is c!reer e $(e!ds t !t r y)e is t e !$$ro$ri!te )ediu) for t e di%nified )!tter of tr!%edy< t !t to de(i% t is $oetry=s $ri)e function< !nd t !t t e c(!ssic!( ru(es !nd unities !re t e $ro$er reins on i)!%in!ti>e e:tr!>!%!nce. .e defends 1n%(is dr!)! in t e >!rious b!tt(es of t e !ncients >s. t e )oderns !nd t e 4renc >s. t e 1n%(is < c(!i)in% t !t it is $ossessed of ! uni;ue ;u!(ity of >i%our !nd s$ont!neity t !t )!@es u$ for its un$o(is ed surf!ces !nd it is su$re)e(y !d!$ted to t e e:$ect!tions !nd t!stes of its 1n%(is !udience. .e (oo@s u$ to ?en Qonson=s Tim#er for neoc(!ssic!( $rinci$(es t !t !re !d!$t!b(e to t e 1n%(is te)$er!)ent !nd f!s ions.
Q1: 'o( $oes .r)$ens $efinition of 6poes)7 $iffer from As!hams? Q2: Remember the stru!ture of The ;ssa) of .ramati! Poes) ? What is the literar) strateg) use$ b) .r)$en to e0press his o(n positions? viii

?y t e ti)e e re6-rote S !@es$e!re=s Antony and Cleopatra into All for Lo!e (1378)< e !d co)e to $refer b(!n@ >erse to r y)e !nd to re%!rd 4renc dr!)! !s su$re)e(y !rtifici!( !nd borin%. & e ne:t ye!r< in t e $ref!ce to is re>ised >ersion of S !@es$e!re=s Troilus and Cressida (1379)< e )!@es c(e!r is $reference for t e refine)ents of is !%e in ter)s of (!n%u!%e !nd c !r!cter< !nd re e!rses t e need to obser>e t e $rinci$(es set fort by *ristot(e< .or!ce !nd Lon%inus. .e ne:t turns is !ttention to tr!ns(!tion< but is concern -it - !t is bot !$$ro$ri!te !nd !$$e!(in% to t e 1n%(is $ub(ic is ne>er for%otten. 5& e fu(( r!n%e of Dryden=s

"0

Part One

critic!( !cu)en !nd t e odd stre!@ of critic!( insensiti>ity7 !re dis$(!yed by is 'ref!ce to .a#les Ancient and %odern, Translated into )erse from Homer, )irgil, Boccace, and Chaucer (1700). & ere<
Dryden c !((en%es A& o)!sB .obbes=s >ie- t !t 5t e first be!uty of !n e$ic $oe) consists in dictionG t !t is< in t e c oice of -ords< !nd !r)ony of nu)bers Ai.e.< r yt )B.7 Words )!y indeed be t e first t in% to stri@e t e re!der< but it is 5t e desi%n< t e dis$osition< t e )!nners< !nd t e t ou% ts7 - ic !>e $rior i)$ort!nce. (?(!)ires 101)

.o-e>er< Dryden=s consider!b(e ;u!(ities !nd $ecu(i!r (i)it!tions e)er%e )ost e(o;uent(y in is !$$r!is!( of " !ucer. +f " !ucer=s >!st !nd !$t %!((ery of c !r!cters !nd )!nners< e $roc(!i)s: 5 ere is Hod=s $(enty.7 +n t e ot er !nd< e s!ys< 5" !ucer is ! rou% di!)ond<7 !s is >erse !nd (!n%u!%e (!c@ !r)ony !nd $o(is < !nd t e critic does not esit!te to su%%est !d!$t!tion. Dryden is !(so t e first to reco%nise t e e>o(ution of (iter!ture fro) one !%e to !not er< t e re(!tion of t e $oet to tr!dition< !s -e(( !s its soci!( o>er6deter)in!tion< t us est!b(is in% t e disci$(ine of (iter!ry istory. *s ?(!)ires conc(udes< 5Dryden is t e )!n - o see)s !()ost sin%(y to !>e (!unc ed 1n%(is (iter!ry criticis) on its -!y. ?efore i) t e %enre sc!rce(y e:ists. *fter i) it !s bu(@ !nd subst!nce7 (102). It is t erefore -it %ood re!son t !t S!)ue( Qo nson dubbed i) 5t e f!t er of 1n%(is criticis)<7 - i(e !bout Dryden=s contribution to $oetry e s!id< !s Dryden !d s!id !bout " !ucer=s< t !t 5 e found it bric@< !nd e (eft it )!rb(e.7 Dryden=s !bi(ities !s bot $oet !nd $(!y-ri% t brou% t i) to t e !ttention of t e Jin%< - o in 1338 )!de i) $oet (!ure!te. &-o ye!rs (!ter t e $ost of roy!( istorio%r!$ er -!s !dded to t e (!ure!tes i$ !t ! co)bined sti$end of U200< enou% )oney to (i>e onG e t us bec!)e t e second %rofessional -riter !fter ?en Qonson (i.e.< e did not !>e to -or@ !t !ny ot er $rofession for ! (i>in%). .e -!s ! (iter!ry dict!tor - o ru(ed by t e $o-er of $erson!( e:!)$(e< !nd set ! )ode( of co))on sense !nd %ood t!ste for ! (iter!ture t !t -!s to be intense(y 1n%(is (see *br!)s et !(. 1787). In is !%e< t e ne- disci$(ine of criticis) en(isted f!)ous $erson!(ities of t e (iter!ry !nd $ i(oso$ ic!( scene suc !s< e!r(y on< & o)!s .obbes (158861379)< *br! !) "o-(ey (1318637)< Sir 0obert .o-!rd (1323698)< Went-ort Di((on< 1!r( of 0osco))on (c.1333685)< & o)!s 0y)er (13/161713)< S!)ue( ?ut(er (1313680)< Sir Wi((i!) &e)$(e (1328699)< Wi((i!) Wotton (133361723)< Qere)y "o((ier (135061723)< Qo n Dennis (13576173/). 4ohn -ilton (130867/) *(on%side Dryden< #i(ton e($ed to cre!te ! ne- !%e in t e de>e(o$)ent of 1n%(is (iter!ture< !n !%e do)in!ted by re!son !nd order< in @ee$in% -it t e netendencies in 4r!nce !nd t rou% out 1uro$e: t e 1n(i% ten)ent. & eir -or@ (oo@s b!c@ on .u)!nis) !nd on t e Hree@ !nd L!tin *ncients< but t eir !ttitudes differ: - i(e Dryden $(e!ds for c !n%e< for e>o(ution< for t e !cce$t!nce of - !t c!)e to be re%!rded !s 2eoc(!ssicis)< !n inno>!ti>e re6!ssess)ent of t e !ncient >!(ues in (iter!ture< #i(ton=s -or@ is t e cu()in!tion of 0en!iss!nce !rt. #i(ton is in f!ct !n !stoundin% inst!nce of t e o$$osin% forces co((idin% durin% t e 0estor!tion *%e:

Part One

"1

t ou% ! fer>ent 'urit!n< e re!cted !%!inst institution!(ised re(i%ion< $referrin% inste!d is o-n $erson!( inter$ret!tion of 5t e -!ys of Hod to )en<7 !nd $ub(ic(y !r%ued t !t di>orce s ou(d be %r!nted on %rounds of inco)$!tibi(ityG on t e ot er !nd< e cou(d ne>er !d!$t to t e f!s ion!b(e (iber!(is) of t e 0estor!tion $eo$(e !nd defended t e 'urit!n re%i)e to t e >ery (!st )o)ent. & ou% >ery )uc ! )!n of is !%e< dee$(y in>o(>ed in t e $o(itic!( !nd soci!( !ff!irs of is country< !s ! -riter e re$resents t e e$ito)e of t e 0en!iss!nce. & is o$tion is e>ident in is c oice of '(otinus=s t eory of t e -or(d !s e)!n!tin% fro) Hod !nd conse;uent(y !s in erent(y %ood< o>er t e *u%ustini!n )ode( of Henesis< in Paradise Lost. #i(ton=s retro%r!de (i.e.< b!c@-!rd6(oo@in%) $ro$ensity is so stron%< t !t critics !>e %one so f!r !s to re%!rd C !nd often ridicu(e C i) !s t e on(y re$resent!ti>e of t e *ncients in ! sti(( on6%oin% b!tt(e !%!inst t e #oderns. & is is of course !n e:!%%er!tion< !s t e *ncients sti(( re$resented t e nor) -e(( into t e 18 t centuryG nonet e(ess< by 1700 #i(ton !d entered t e c!non of 1n%(is (iter!ture in s$ite of C or indeed $er !$s bec!use of C is uni;ueness. Areopagitica (13//)< #i(ton=s best6@no-n $!)$ (et< -!s occ!sioned by !n +rdin!nce for 'rintin% t !t !d been issued one !nd ! !(f ye!rs e!r(ier< !nd - ic !tte)$ted to contro( t e $ub(ic!tion of un(icensed )!teri!(. & e Stu!rt $o(ice bein% r!t er (ess t !n efficient< it -!s not t e effects of t e +rdin!nce t !t inf(!)ed #i(ton< but t e $rinci$(e itse(f. & e $!)$ (et is i% (y )odern in its defence of t e freedo) of e:$ression !nd t ou% t. *s Hod !d %i>en )!n t e freedo) to c oose !)on% t e )!ny foods of t e $ ysic!( -or(d< ur%in% on(y te)$er!nce< so .e !d !(so (eft i) free to $ic@ !nd c oose for i)se(f !)on% ide!s. #!n=s c oice< #i(ton !r%ues< s ou(d not be (i)ited for t e s!@e of $etty )erc!nti(e !nd ideo(o%ic!( $ri>i(e%e. In its f(orid< or!toric!( tone< !s -e(( !s in conce$tion< o-e>er< t e te:t is c(!ssicist: it i)$(ies ! $!r!((e( bet-een t e !ncient Hree@ su$re)e tribun!( !nd t e 1n%(is '!r(i!)ent< -it #i(ton i)se(f !s t e -ise Isocr!tes< - ose tit(e !nd r etoric!( sty(e e borro-s. *s -it is $!)$ (ets on di>orce (13/365) !nd Of *ducation (13//)< des$ite t e o(d6f!s ioned r etoric< t e ide!s u$ e(d !re ;uite r!dic!( for t !t ti)e. & ey ;uestion< -it bib(ic!( or c(!ssic!( !r%u)ents< so)e of t e dee$(y en%r!ined soci!( con>entions !s -e(( !s $o(itic!( decisions< !t ! ti)e - en (!r%er $o(itic!( issues (t e "i>i( W!r) $re6e)$ted t e soci!( refor) in - ose n!)e t ey !d been undert!@en. In ess!ys suc !s The ,eason of Church 2o!ernment 6rg4d Against Prelaty (13/1) !nd Apology for -mectymnuus (13/2)< #i(ton tre!ts of is o-n >oc!tion !s ! $oet. Jeen(y !-!re of t e i% c!((in% of t e $oet !nd is o-n $otenti!( for beco)in% ! b!rd of is n!tion< e insists on t e i)$ort!nce of $erson!( )or!( inte%rity !nd erois) to t e one - o -i(( be ! $oet< !nd t us not on(y ! ce(ebr!tor of %re!t deeds !nd ide!(s but !(so ! $erson!( e:!)$(e. & is (ofty conce$t of t e $oet=s ro(e is c(e!r(y re(e>!nt to t e $roduction of is %re!t e$ic Paradise Lost< - ere it is reinforced by t e use of b(!n@ >erse !nd ! subt(e syste) of @ey-ords !nd ec oes< - ose ro(e !nd i)$ort!nce !re defended in t e 'ref!ce to t !t -or@ (1338). ,ie-ed !%!inst t e b!c@%round of $rose $ro$!%!nd! t !t #i(ton -!s -ritin% !()ost to t e e:c(usion of !(( ot er %enres durin% t e "i>i( W!r !nd

"2

Part One

"o))on-e!(t $eriod< t ese $!)$ (ets re>e!( t e -riter to be not on(y se(f6 ri% teous but !(so o$inion!ted !nd critic!(. S$eci!( )ention s ou(d be )!de of t e co)$!nion $oe)s L4Allegro !nd 'l Penseroso< t e unsur$!ssed )!ster$ieces of is 13/5 >o(u)e of $oetry. "ritic Louis #!rtE -!rns !%!inst t e d!n%ers of re!din% t e) in $!r!((e( !s if t ey -ere t e 5t-o sides of !n !c!de)ic deb!te<7 !nd $oints out t !t t ey 5de>e(o$ ! (ine!r< se;uenti!( effect< )o>in% fro) yout fu( edonis) to-!rd t e $ i(oso$ ic< conte)$(!ti>e )ind7 (in Wi)s!tt /11). #ic !e( Wi(din%< o-e>er< identifies t e t e)e of t ese t-o $oe)s !s 5t e $oetic itse(f<7 re%!rdin% t e t-o )oods< Ioy !nd )e(!nc o(y< !s 5t e contr!stin% )oods of ins$ir!tion< t e sources of cre!ti>ity7 (in "orns 233). .e insists )ore on t e outre!c in% tendency of t e $oe)s< - ic $ro$ose !n ide!( -!y of (ife< idy((ic< rur!(< free of t e c!res of bot fri>o(ous (o>e !nd $o(itic!( tur)oi(. Wi(din% !ssi%ns #i(ton=s !tte)$t !t se(f6@no-(ed%e !nd t e !usterity of is ide!(s to t e $oet=s 'urit!nis)< - i(e #!rtE is inc(ined to see in t e) t e inf(uence of '(!tonis). *fter t e 0estor!tion< !s #i(ton=s o$inions beco)e bot $otenti!((y d!n%erous to i)se(f !nd (ess (i@e(y to find ! (!r%e !udience< e returns to t e f!r )ore refined )ediu) of $oetry for t e e:$ression of is $ositions on re(i%ion< $o(itics< society< !nd (iter!ture. ***+ The #nlightenment & e ei% teent century be%!n under t e si%n of 0e!son !nd ended under t !t of Senti)ent. *s .!rry ?(!)ires $oints out<
AtB e e!r(y dec!des of t e ei% teent century re$resent ! $eriod of c!() !nd $ros$erity !fter t e dissensions !nd tur)oi(s of t e $re>ious century.N It -!s !n !%e - en industry !nd co))erce -ere e:$!ndin%< - en !%ricu(ture< s ee$6f!r)in% !nd -oo((en )!nuf!cture $ros$ered. O'urit!nis)= -!s t!@in% on ! different %uise. 1ner%ies - ic !d %one into re(i%ious contro>ersy -ere bein% de>oted to tr!de !nd industry. (127)

In t is conte:t< t e !rts !nd $ i(oso$ y ;uic@(y f(ouris ed:

In t e (iter!ry fie(d t e de>e(o$)ent of %eriodical 2o"rnalism %!>e ! ne- out(et for -riters !nd soon $ro>ided ! $(!tfor) for (iter!ry criticis). & e Tatler -!s (!unc ed in 1709 !nd t e -pectator in 1711. *t t e s!)e ti)e< c(ubs !nd coffee6 ouses incre!sin%(y $ro>ided centres of t!(@ !nd soci!bi(ity for t ose interested in $o(itics or (iter!ture. & e use of t e ter) 5*u%ust!n *%e7 to identify t e $eriod i)$(ies t !t in 1n%(is (iter!ry istory it !s t e @ind of distinction - ic ,ir%i(< .or!ce !nd +>id %!>e to t e rei%n of t e 1)$eror *u%ustus. (12869).

Indeed< t e n!)e of t e !%e )!y !>e been coined by t e $oet Leon!rd We(sted (1388617/7)< but t e f!)e of t e !%e de$ended on ! triu)>ir!te of -riters C Qose$ *ddison< Qon!t !n S-ift !nd *(e:!nder 'o$e C si)i(!r in stren%t < inf(uence !nd $references to t e 0o)!n one. & ey -ere surrounded by ! ste((!r fo((o-in% t !t cu()in!ted in t e second $!rt of t e century -it t e %re!test critic 1n%(!nd !d !s yet $roduced< Dr S!)ue( Qo nson. & e 1n%(is *u%ust!n *%e -!s so i)$ressi>e t !t ,o(t!ire (139/61778)< !fter is >isit to 1n%(!nd in 1723629< -!s )o>ed to !tt!c@ t e ancien r7gime !t o)e in is Lettres Philosophi5ues (173/).

Part One

""

The #ssayists & e !$$e!r!nce of $eriodic!( Iourn!(is) c!n be d!ted -it $recision: it -!s in>ented by (ichard Steele in The Tatler, in *$ri( 1709. *(t ou% ori%in!((y $o(itic!( ne-s )!de t e obIect of $eriodic!(s< 1n%(!nd=s re(!ti>e(y $e!cefu( intern!tion!( re(!tions !nd do)estic censure )!de it )ore $rofit!b(e< !s -e(( !s s!fer< -it in si: )ont s of its initi!( !$$e!r!nce< to be !()ost entire(y de>oid of $o(itic!( ne-s !nd co))ent. It soon bec!)e co))on for) to dis$!r!%e t e !$$etite for ne-s. Inste!d< Iourn!(s $ro$osed c(oser !ttention to t e indi>idu!(< to )!nners !nd )or!(s< to for)s of entert!in)ent< !nd %ener!((y to se(f6de>e(o$)ent. It -!s t us t e c!se t !t by t e ti)e The -pectator st!rted to !$$e!r in 1711 t e c ief obIect of t e $eriodic!( ess!yists -!s t e %re!t co))on ;uestion of o- to (i>e. 0ic !rd Stee(e< Qose$ *ddison< !nd (!ter S!)ue( Qo nson >!rious(y turned t is ;uestion into !n industry of i))ense(y f!s ion!b(e $eriodic!( -ritin%. * W i% $o(itici!n -it decided re(i%ious o$inions< 4ose%h Addison (13726 1719) for%ed for i)se(f ! distin%uis ed Iourn!(istic c!reer in t e fie(d of t e (etters by $ub(is in% insi% tfu( !rtic(es in t e -pectator bet-een 1711 !nd 171/. .is out$ut c!n be di>ided into t ree c!te%ories: !rtic(es on criticis) %ener!((y< on Paradise Lost< !nd on 5& e '(e!sures of I)!%in!tion.7 & e first c!te%ory co)$rises definitions of suc co)$(e: conce$ts !s -it !nd t!ste. .is e)$ !sis is !(-!ys on si)$(icity (!s o$$osed to t e e)er%in% t!ste for 5Hot ic7 !nd 50o)!nce7)< co))onsense !nd re!son (corres$ondence of ide!s r!t er t !n for)s in )et!$ ors define 5true -it7)< but e !dds ! ne- e(e)ent t !t brin%s i) c(oser to Lon%inus t !n !nyone e(se: t e intuiti>e c!$!city to 5enter into t e >ery s$irit !nd sou( of fine -ritin%7 !nd e(ucid!te - !t it !s to offer (5&!ste7 in t e -pectator no. /09). .is criticis) of #i(ton=s )!ster$iece e>inces ! st!nce 5fro) - ic so )uc of t e best (iter!ry criticis) !s s$run%: t e st!nce of t e re!der so entr!nced -it - !t e !s re!d t !t e )ust -i((y6ni((y s !re is de(i% t -it ot ers7 (?(!)ires 13/). *s to t e $(e!sures of i)!%in!tion< t ey !rise es$eci!((y fro) reco%nition !nd reco((ection of obIects t !t -e need not e>er !>e seen in t e s!)e -!y< but - ic !re su))oned u$ by t e -or@ of !rt t !t is c !r!cterised by t e %re!t< t e ne-< !nd t e be!utifu(. 5& e $ i(oso$ ic!( b!sis< o-e>er< of u)!n de(i% t in t e %re!t< t e ne-< !nd t e be!utifu(< (ies in t e f!ct t !t Hod O !s so for)ed t e sou( of )!n t !t not in% but .i)se(f c!n be its (!st< !de;u!te< !nd $ro$er !$$iness=7 (135). I)!%in!tion is< in *ddison=s -ords< t !t f!cu(ty - ic 5)!@es !dditions to n!ture !nd %i>es %re!ter >!riety to Hod=s -or@s.7 Hod 5c!n so e:;uisite(y r!>is or torture t e sou( t rou% t is sin%(e f!cu(ty !s )i% t suffice to )!@e u$ t e - o(e e!>en or e(( of !ny finite bein%7 (5+n t e '(e!sures of t e I)!%in!tion7 in t e -pectator no. /21). *ddison=s ent usi!s) !nd co))onsense< !s -e(( !s is o$en6)indedness !bout - !t it is t !t )!@es ! -or@ %re!t< !>e ensured !n i)$ort!nt $(!ce for i) in t e $!nt eon of 1n%(is criticis)< in s$ite of is (!c@ of $rofundity !nd !n!(ytic!( $recision. 4onathan Swift (1337617/5) -!s ! )uc )ore s$irited neoc(!ssicist< - ose Battle of the Boo s (170/) does not s$!re e>en t e best of is conte)$or!ries

"/

Part One

(Dryden< for inst!nce< is one of is >icti)s). .is di!tribes !re c(e!r e>idence t !t t e so6c!((ed 5?!tt(e of t e *ncients !nd t e #oderns7 -!s sti(( >ery )uc in effect !t t e be%innin% of t e ei% teent century. .is f!)e !s !n ess!yist< o-e>er< does not rest on is $!rtici$!tion in (iter!ry deb!tes !s )uc !s on is soci!( !nd $o(itic!( s!tires. *side fro) is !rs !nd de)!ndin% criti;ue of current (iter!ry !c ie>e)ent !nd (iter!ry criticis)< it is is intense !nd -e((6contro((ed style. c !r!cterised by si)$(icity !nd s-ift tone >!ri!tion< t !t )!de i) !n i)$ort!nt inf(uence. ,ery often is si)$(icity in synt!: !nd diction is (i!b(e to be ! c!)ouf(!%e for insidious intentions. It is ! r etoric!( de>ice not entire(y different fro) t e -itty )is!$$(ic!tion of (e!rned ide!s in su$$ort of !n !ud!cious $ro$osition< - ic e !d (e!rned fro) t e #et!$ ysic!( $oets. In is bri((i!nt $(!y -it t e o(d )odes of (e!rned s$ecu(!tion< is i)!%in!ti>e ferti(ity in de>e(o$in% concrete(y !n !bsurd $seudo6scientific conce$tion< is di!(ectic!( resourcefu(ness !nd effrontery< t e !d)ir!b(e !rt of O!r%uin% t rou% i)!%es<= S-ift is of t e -or(d of 0!be(!is< Donne< !nd ?en Qonson. & e 1n%(is )!sters of r!tiocin!ti>e -it C t e !rt of de>e(o$in% ! $(!usib(e yet outr!%eous !r%u)ent C !re Donne< Dryden !nd S-ift< !nd t ey s$rin% fro) ! (on%6st!ndin% tr!dition of te!c in% di!(ectic t in@in% in sc oo(.
Q: Who is the father of $iale!ti! thin+ing?i0

In ter)s of t eir re(!ti>e $osition in (iter!ry deb!tes< Heor%e 4!r;u !r (13786 1707)< *nt ony *s (ey "oo$er< t e t ird 1!r( of S !ftesbury (137161713) !nd Qo n .u% es (137761730) (- o contributed to restorin% S$enser !nd !((e%ory to t eir for)er f!)e)< situ!te t e)se(>es on t e ot er side: un(i@e S-ift< t ey $(e!d t !t 1n%(is (iter!ture !nd criticis) !>e )uc to offer - en $ro$er(y !$$ro!c ed. 4or !(( of t e)< !s for S-ift< t e -ritin% of $eriodic!( ess!ys $ro>ed !n essenti!( (esson in sty(e: ! -riter - o !d under%one t e disci$(ine of t !t s ort for) -!s (ess (i@e(y to !>e recourse to unnecess!ry $o)$osity or )e!nin%(ess I!r%on in ot er -ritin%. & e inf(uence of t e $eriodic!( ess!y )!de for c(!rity< si)$(icity< !nd (iter!ry %ood )!nners. & e ess!yists !nd -riters ser>ed t eir !$$rentices i$ in $eriodic!(s suc !s: The 2uardian, The Ad!enturer, The World, The Connoisseur, The Citi8en of the World (run by +(i>er Ho(ds)it ) , The Champion (to - ic .enry 4ie(din% contributed), t e s ort6(i>ed 1dinbur% %irror !nd Lounger, etc. & e ot er )!Ior critic of t e ti)e - o !d 5t e st!tus of !n *ddison or ! Dryden7 (?(!)ires 1/3) -!s Ale&ander Po%e (1388617//). .is >erse *ssay on Criticism (1711) re e!rses in .or!ti!n for) )ost of t e fund!)ent!( tenets of neoc(!ssic!( criticis) !nd insists t !t ! t orou% @no-(ed%e of t e !ncients is ! $rere;uisite of criticis). Fet e 5dist!nces i)se(f fro) t ose - o reco))end ! s(!>is !d erence to t e !ncient ru(es !nd )ode(s. In $oetry t ere !re On!)e(ess %r!ces - ic no )et ods te!c =7 (1/8)< !nd %enius is )!nifested $recise(y - en t e infrin%e)ent of t e ru(es $roduces resu(ts t !t f!r sur$!ss t ose yie(ded by t eir obser>!nce. & e %ood critic is c !r!cterised !s unbi!sed< (e!rned< -e((6bred< sincere< 5)odest(y bo(d !nd u)!n(y se>ere<7 but !)on%st t e ?ritons< t e on(y ones -ort y of t e n!)e< !ccordin% to 'o$e< !re )inor ones suc !s 0osco))on

Part One

".

!nd W!(s . *s to 1n%(is $oets< e>en is discussion of S !@es$e!re (in t e 'ref!ce to is i)$erfect edition of t e (!tter=s -or@s< 1725) e: ibits !(( t e $reIudices of is !%e !nd is o-n $erson!( en>y. *s ! )e)ber of t e Scrib(erus "(ub (- ic !(so inc(uded S-ift< *rbut not< !nd Hr!y< ! %rou$ $ro%r!))!tic!((y deter)ined to )oc@ 5!(( t e f!(se t!stes in (e!rnin%7)< 'o$e contributed ! tre!tise to ! >o(u)e of %iscellanies (1728) under t e $seudony) #!rtin Scrib(erus. In t !t tre!tise< entit(ed 5 Peri Bathous< or & e *rt of Sin@in% in 'oetry<7 e )ode((ed is criticis) on Lon%inus< ironic!((y t-istin% t e -ord #athos (O$rofundity=) to )e!n 5! (udicrous descent to t e co))on$(!ce<7 ! )e!nin% - ic !s stuc@. Wit $o@er6f!ced Oseriousness<= e sur>eys t e c e!$ $oeticis)s of t e ti)e !nd offers sober instruction in o- not to -rite. & e ess!y is ! bri((i!nt inst!nce of 'o$e=s >itrio(ic ridicu(e< !nd !)on% is >icti)s -ere Leon!rd We(sted !nd Le-is & eob!(d (1388617//) (- o< incident!((y< edited ! )uc better edition of -ha espeare ,estored< 1723). In s$ite of suc b(!t!nt $ettiness !nd s ort6si% tedness< 'o$e re)!ins one of t e )ost re(e>!nt >oices of is ti)e. .is ess!ys !re )ore often t !n not -ritten in >erse. In ! sty(e t !t !s t e c(!rity of cryst!( !nd t e )e)or!b(e ;u!(ity of ! $ro>erb< !s -e(( !s t e c!$!city to )eet t e i% est !rtistic st!nd!rds of t e !%e< e de!(s -it e>ery e>ent< con>ention !nd )ent!(ity t !t c!n be !ssi%ned to t e *u%ust!n er!. 5& e ri%orousness of is !rtistic tr!inin% is e>ident in e>eryt in% e $ub(is ed: one is conscious of st!nd!rds )edit!ted first !nd t en @e$t continu!((y in )ind. In t is -!y it )!y be s!id t !t t e strin%ency of conte)$or!ry criticis) contributed so)e- !t to t !t e:;uisite $oise of Iud%e)ent - ic is t e )!r@ of !(( 'o$e=s -or@7 (2or)!n "!((!n< in 4ord< >o(. /< $. 237). The ,ape of the Loc (17126 /)< *pistle to Ar#uthnot (173/)< The Dunciad (17286/3)< *ssay on %an (17326/) C t ese !re on(y ! fe- inst!nces of is s!tiric!( %enius !nd ;u!(it!ti>e(y t e e;u!( of S-ift=s $rose s!tires. Sam"el 4ohnson (170968/) It is< o-e>er< S!)ue( Qo nson C %ener!((y referred to !s Dr Qo nson C - o re$resents t e !rc ety$e of t e 18t 6century s$iritG is (iter!ry criticis) be(on%s s$ecific!((y to t e 1750s< 1730s !nd 1770s. *s ?(!)ires $oints out< 5t e Oc(!ssic!(= (!be( !tt!c es (ess fittin%(y to Qo nson t !n to is *u%ust!n $redecessors< if f!it fu( !tt!c )ent to !ncient c(!ssic!( for)u(!tions is t e criterion7G nonet e(ess< 5t e (!be( be(on%s su$re)e(y to i) in connotin% t e centr!( fount of (iter!ry inf(uence in t e century of st!bi(ity !nd t e !%e of re!son7 (171). 5#!ny of is utter!nces !re cr!))ed -it i((u)in!tion !nd entert!in)ent<7 t e s!)e istori!n ent usi!stic!((y %oes on (173). & e )ost re(e>!nt ide!s in 1n%(is criticis) !re (!r%e(y cont!ined in t ree br!nc es of Qo nson=s -or@: $eriodic!( ess!ys in t e ,am#ler !nd t e 'dlerG t e edition of S !@es$e!reG !nd t e Li!es of the Poets. 4urt er)ore< in is $rose f!b(e ,asselas (1759)< e !s !n o(d $ i(oso$ er< I)(!c< - o de(i>ers ! descri$tion of t e 5business of t e $oet7 t !t ec oes 4ie(din% !nd !ntici$!tes t e 0o)!ntics Words-ort !nd S e((ey. *ccordin% to t is descri$tion< t e $oet )ust obser>e - !t

"2

Part One

is uni>ers!((y >!(id in u)!n n!ture !nd 5-rite !s t e inter$reter of n!ture< !nd t e (e%is(!tor of )!n@ind< !nd consider i)se(f !s $residin% o>er t e t ou% ts !nd )!nners of future %ener!tions.7 & e $oet !s t e %enius for )!@in% t e f!)i(i!r t in%s of e>eryd!y (ife see) ne-. 1s$eci!((y in The ,am#ler< but !(so in The 'dler< Dr Qo nson $ub(is ed so)e of is best (iter!ry !nd cu(tur!( criticis). *(t ou% in t e for)er e !$$e!rs to !>e >irtu!((y no sense of u)our !nd is %ener!((y >ery critic!(< t e >o(u)e for) -!s $ub(is ed to %re!t !cc(!i) !nd co))erci!( success. & is de)onstr!tes t !t by t e 1730s @no-(ed%e of ! fe- %re!t -riters -!s not ! )!tter for $rofession!( sc o(!rs on(y< but ! $!rt of %ener!( cu(ture< !()ost of %ood )!nners. & e s!)e is true of concerns -it t e 1n%(is (!n%u!%e: e ur%es t !t !s$ects of sty(e !ffect !nyone - o tries to s$e!@ or -rite correct(yG )oreo>er< ! critic!( interest in t e s$o@en (!n%u!%e is ! )!r@ of (iter!ry )!turity. .is br!nd of (in%uistic e(e%!nce -!s to infor) %ener!tions of $ri>!te (etter -riters. In )!ny of is !rtic(es Dr Qo nson -!rns t !t (iter!ture is not reducib(e to ! syste)!tis!b(e (ist of ru(es !nd re%u(!tions< !nd neit er is criticis)G e conse;uent(y !d>ises !%!inst undue re(i!nce on critics. & e 'ref!ce to is needition of S !@es$e!re=s -or@s is ! bri((i!nt i((ustr!tion of is e)$iric!( )et od of !n!(ysin% t eories !nd testin% t e) !%!inst e:$erience. .e re e!rses t e )!in $oints de>e(o$ed by S !@es$e!re criticis) since Dryden (S !@es$e!re !s t e $oet of n!ture< not (e!rnin%< !s t e cre!tor of )e)or!b(e c !r!cters< !s $oet - o su$re)e(y e>o@es !nd e:$resses $!ssion)< but !tt!c@s !nd dis)isses t e (on%6 st!ndin% re>erence for t e unities of ti)e !nd $(!ce in ! f!rsi% ted t rust t !t e>o@es "o(erid%e. .e de)onstr!tes t !t< t !n@s to t e i)!%in!tion of t e s$ect!tor< t e $(!y-ri% t need not cont!in t e !ction -it in t e $eriod of t-enty6 four ours or restrict it to one $(!ce t rou% out t e $(!y. In t is< !s -e(( !s in t e Li!es of the Poets< Qo nson is t e 5%re!t c !)$ionNof common sense and the common reader. Wit out denyin% t e ri% t of t e $oet to f(i% ts of i)!%in!tion< e !(so insists t !t $oe)s )ust )!@e sense< $(e!se re!ders< !nd e($ us not on(y to underst!nd t e -or(d< but to co$e -it it. Qo nson o(ds $oe)s to t e tr"th< !s e sees it: t e $rinci$(es of n!ture< (o%ic< re(i%ion< !nd )or!(ity7 (*br!)s et !(. 2297). 2ot e>en S !@es$e!re is for%i>en - en e 5s!crifices >irtue to con>enience7 !nd 5see)s to -rite -it out !ny )or!( $ur$ose<7 or - en e t!@es off on t e )!d $ursuit of ! $un (or 5;uibb(e7) !nd for%ets t e )!tter in !nd. ?ut to t e in!d>is!bi(ity of )i:in% %enres or of sub$(ots Qo nson is !d>erse. Qo nson is no -ors i$er of !ut ority or )ere Ocorrectness=: is 5deter)in!tion AisB to Iud%e (iter!ture by its trut to (ife< not by !bstr!ct ru(es7 (*br!)s et !(. 2297). .ence is f!scin!tion -it t e !rt of bio%r!$ y !s re>e(!tory of u)!n n!ture !s -e(( !s t e cre!ti>e $rocesses of t e )ind of %enius. *(t ou% t e $oets e $resents in is )!ster$iece< Li!es of the Poets (1781)< !re not !(-!ys of is c oice (t e se(ection -!s )!de by boo@se((ers !ccordin% to current f!s ion !nd co>ers t e $eriod fro) *br! !) "o-(ey to & o)!s Hr!y)< is !stute criticis)< t ou% not inf!((ib(e< !s est!b(is ed t e tone !nd criteri! for t e ne:t centuries of criticis). In t e t-entiet century< &.S. 1(iot u%e(y !$$reci!ted is erudition< insi% t< irony !nd

Part One

",

det!c )ent. In ter)s of t e de>e(o$)ent of t e 1n%(is (!n%u!%e< is %enuine concern -it it )!teri!(ised in t e s !$e of is $rodi%ious Dictionary (1755)< t e first $rofession!(< )ost co)$re ensi>e !nd inno>!ti>e diction!ry of t e 1n%(is (!n%u!%e to d!te (!(t ou% not t e first diction!ry e>er: in f!ct t e 18 t century -!s one of )u(ti$(e %ood diction!ries). *bo>e !((< e sou% t to fi: t e )e!nin% or )e!nin%s of -ords< !nd to t is end e !dded i((ustr!ti>e ;uot!tions r!n%in% fro) Sidney for-!rd. 4or e!c -ord< - ere $ossib(e< e %!>e ety)o(o%ies< !nd e>en t ou% so)e of is ety)o(o%ies sound ridicu(ous in >ie- of )odern $ i(o(o%ic!( studies< e )!de %ood use of t e %ro-in% -or@ of *n%(o6S!:on sc o(!rs. 4urt er< one of is $ri)!ry !i)s -!s to unify s$e((in% C ! $roIect to - ic t e de>e(o$)ent of Iourn!(is) contributed r!dic!((y C !nd !ccentu!tion t rou% rudi)ent!ry $ onetic tr!nscri$tion. Fet !not er )erit of is inf(uenti!( diction!ry -!s to introduce ne-ords< )!ny of t e) in>ented by Qo nson i)se(f< ot ers tr!nsferred fro) is -ide6r!n%in% re!din% in t e sciences into t e $ri>!te re!() of con>ers!tion !nd corres$ondence. Dr Qo nson=s inf(uence )!teri!(ised in ! %r!du!( re2ection of neoclassicism. & e )ost i)$ort!nt critics !t t e end of t e ei% teent century -ere: 1d-!rd Foun% (138361735 C $re60o)!ntic $oet)< Q!)es W!rton (172261800)< & o)!s W!rton (1728690 C brot er of t e for)er< 'rofessor of 'oetry !t +:ford !nd e>entu!((y 'oet L!ure!te)< 0ic !rd .urd (172061808). *(so< t e $ i(oso$ ers D!>id .u)e (1711673)< 1d)und ?ur@e (1729697)< !nd .enry .o)e< Lord J!)es (13936 1732)< !nd t e $!inter Sir Qos u! 0eyno(ds (1723692)< !tte)$t to out(ine ! t eory of !est etic e:$erience. #oreo>er< t e $r!ctitioners of (iter!ture t e)se(>es beco)e )ore outs$o@en. +(i>er Ho(ds)it (173067/)< .enry #!c@enEie (17/56 1831)< 0ic !rd "u)ber(!nd (173261811) !re so)e of t e )ost i)$ort!nt no>e(ists - o -rote on t eir cr!ft. Henry Fielding (170765/) +f t e no>e(ists< 4ie(din% 5brou% t ! b(!st of fres !ir into t e -or(d of criticis)< not on(y bec!use e so c eerfu((y e:$osed $retentiousness< but bec!use e c!)e re$resentin% ! ne- %enre of (iter!ture - ic -!s e>entu!((y to tr!nsfor) t e !ren! of critic!( studies7 (?(!)ires 137). 4ie(din% enters t e (iter!ry -or(d dr!%%in% !(( t e $!r!$ ern!(i! of neoc(!ssicis) be ind i) in is s$ect!cu(!r tr!Iectory fro) dr!)! to t e no>e(. Fet for !(( t !t indebtedness< e @no-s o)uc of !n inno>!tor e is: 54or !s I !)< in re!(ity< t e founder of ! ne- $ro>ince of -ritin%< so I !) !t (iberty to )!@e - !t (!-s I $(e!se t erein<7 e bo!sts in Tom 9ones, a .oundling (17/9) (?@. II< c . 1). * fe- ye!rs e!r(ier< in 9oseph Andre1s (17/2)< t e !ut or< - o !d recent(y %i>en u$ $(!y-ritin%< set out to $!rody S!)ue( 0ic !rdson=s Pamela !nd< i)$(icit(y< current $rose f!s ions: Fet t e need for ori%in!(ity is so )uc stron%er t !t t e boo@ e>entu!((y )o>es !-!y fro) t e obIect of its $!rody !nd !tte)$ts to %ener!te ! ne- (iter!ry %enre !(to%et er. In t e 'ref!ce to 9oseph Andre1s 4ie(din% !$$e!(s to .o)er !nd *ristot(e !s !ut orities for is o-n 5s$ecies of $oetry<7 - ic e f!)ous(y defines !s fo((o-s: 52o- !

"-

Part One

co)ic ro)!nce is ! comic e%ic %oem in %rose : differin% fro) co)edy< !s t e serious e$ic fro) tr!%edy: its !ction bein% )ore e:tended !nd co)$re ensi>eG cont!inin% ! )uc (!r%er circ(e of incidents< !nd introducin% ! %re!ter >!riety of c !r!cters7 ()y e)$ !sis). & is %enre !s ! 5(i% t !nd ridicu(ous7 f!b(e inste!d of ! 5%r!>e !nd so(e)n7 one< $ersons of inferior r!n@ !nd )!nners inste!d of su$erior ones< !nd in its senti)ents !nd diction it substitutes t e 5(udicrous7 for t e 5sub(i)e7 (see ?(!)ires 13768)G t !t is to s!y< t ey !re not subIect to t e i% st!nd!rds of t e tr!%ic. Fet it is fro) t e c(!ssics t !t e deri>es is $ostu(!tion of t e (!r%e !rr!y of c !r!cters !nd e>ents !cco))od!ted by t e no>e(.
Q: What is a!!or$ing to /iel$ing in this Prefa!e the proper provin!e of a 6!omi! roman!e7?0

4ie(din%=s (ife6(on% co))it)ent to Iustice !nd u)!nit!ri!nis) did not )!teri!(ise !s $syc o(o%ic!( $enetr!tion !nd ! sense of u)!n $erfectibi(ityG r!t er< is fiction e:udes ! dense !-!reness of its o-n !rtifici!(ity. Wit is o)niscient n!rr!tors !nd !cid irony< 4ie(din% c(!i)s !n e$ic erit!%e t !t is descri$ti>e r!t er t !n $rescri$ti>e !nd - ic !((o-s i) to re$resent u)!n ty$es -it t e >erb!( e;ui>!(ent of t e confident brus stro@es of is friend< t e $!inter !nd c!rtoonist Wi((i!) .o%!rt . 4ie(din%=s 9oseph Andre1s !nd Tom 9ones< 0ic !rdson=s Pamela !nd Clarissa -ere !(( $ub(is ed in t e 17/0s. *(t ou% c rono(o%ic!((y t ese no>e(s< !(on% -it Defoe=s< be(on%ed to t e *%e of 0e!son< on(y 4ie(din%=s -or@ !rose fro) !ny sense of t !t tr!dition e)!n!tin% fro) t e !ncientsG t e ot ers !d )o>ed on to e)br!ce eit er t e et os of i)$eri!(is) or of senti)ent. *ccordin% to 4ie(din%< o-e>er< t e )ost >!(u!b(e istory of u)!n n!ture !s been su$$(ied by .o)er !nd #i(ton r!t er t !n t e istori!ns or $ i(oso$ ers. *s ?(!)ires notes< 5AnBot in% is )ore re)!r@!b(e t !n t e f!ct t !t in t e (on% story of t e 1n%(is no>e( t e t-o )ost inno>!tory -riters< 4ie(din% !nd Q!)es Qoyce< s ou(d !>e found t e b!sis for t eir inno>!tion in .o)er7 (139). It is e;u!((y re)!r@!b(e< -e )i% t !dd< t !t t e first )!Ior no>e(ist !r@ens b!c@ to t e first 1n%(is critic< Sir ' i(i$ Sidney< in is underst!ndin% of t e docu)ent!ry >!(ue of (iter!ture.

Part One

"+

Lect"re */ The 0ineteenth Cent"ry

*+ The (omantics .ere is o- ?(!)ires describes t e be%innin% of t e nineteent century:
& e 0o)!ntic !%e -!s !n !%e of re>o(ution< soci!( !nd tec no(o%ic!(< $ i(oso$ ic!( !nd (iter!ry. & e !rnessin% of ste!)6$o-er< t e conse;uent de>e(o$)ent of mass%rod"ction< !nd t e )o>e)ent of t e $o$u(!tion fro) rur!( !re!s to t e %ro-in% urb!n !re!s of industry !nd co))erce< )!r@ed one of t e cruci!( turnin% $oints in )odern istory. "ities -ere bui(t< fortunes )!de< !nd -or@ers= (i>es rendered dis)!((y (!borious in !$$(yin% t e laisse*-faire $rinci$(es of t e econo)ist Adam Smith (17236 90)< - ose study The Wealth of 0ations (1773) encour!%ed t e $ursuit of indi>idu!( $rofit !s t e route to n!tion!( $ros$erity. & e *nd"strial (e!ol"tion tr!nsfor)ed t e f!ce of t e countryside !nd t rust -or@ers to%et er in t e ne- urb!n en>iron)ents< $!c@ed !nd s)o@y. (217< )y e)$ !sis)

In t is un$ro$itious c(i)!te< 4r!nce< - ose court !d (on% ce!sed to set t e cu(tur!( f!s ion for 1uro$e< s oc@ed t e -or(d into ! ne- !-!reness of $ro%ress:
& e 4renc 0e>o(ution< -it its incon%ruous s$ect!c(e of fer>our for (iberty !nd t irst for b(ood< e!rtened !nd !$$!((ed t e -!tc in% -or(d. It cou(d not but be !n issue in t e c!reers of !(ert conte)$or!ries. It fed t-o contr!ry i)$u(ses< t e de)!nd for $o(itic!( !nd soci!( refor)< !nd t e deter)in!tion to !>oid ! b(ood6b!t . & e rise of 2!$o(eon !nd t e -!r -it 4r!nce c!st ! s !do- o>er )!ny ide!(istic (ibert!ri!n )o>e)ents in 1n%(!nd. Fet t e inte((ectu!( fer)ent of - ic t e re>o(ution -!s born infected t in@in% )en !nd -o)en -it disturbin% uncert!inties< not on(y !bout t e in erited soci!( f!bric of society< but !(so !bout t e in erited f!brics of be(ief !nd )or!(ity. & e fer)ent -!s ins$ired by $o-erfu( (iter!ry fi%ures< %oin% b!c@ to Qe!n6 Q!c;ues 0ousse!u (1712678)< t e !$ost(e of indi>idu!( !utono)y in t e f!ce of corru$tin% ci>i(is!tion. *t o)e contro>ersy -!s fue((ed by t in@ers suc !s &o) '!ine (173761809) -it is boo@ The ,ights of %an (1791)< Wi((i!) Hod-in (175361833) -it is Political 9ustice (1793)< !nd #!ry Wo((stonecr!ft (1759697) -it er )indication of the ,ights of Woman (1792). (21768)

Liter!ry criticis) c!nnot be e:$ected to de!( -it !(( t ese issues e:$(icit(y< but t ey (eft !n inde(ib(e i)$rint on (iter!ry t in@in%. +ne of t e )!Ior c !n%es t !t resu(ted -!s ! ne- connot!tion for t e conce$t of trut to n!ture: 52!ture is no (on%er $ri)!ri(y t e $rinci$(e of si)$(icity - ic f!s ion!b(e society offends !%!inst -it its orn!)ents !nd fo$$eries. It is t e force - ic binds )!n to )ot er e!rt < - ic surrounds i) -it i((s !nd co>ers i) -it t e s@y. *nd - !t offends !%!inst it is t e )i(( c i)ney !nd t e ste!) en%ine< f!ctory (!bour !nd t e city s(u)7 (218). *t t e be%innin% of t e nineteent century (iter!ry criticis) is do)in!ted by t e 0o)!ntic $oets !nd t eir $ i(oso$ ic!( e:cursus into t e subt(e corres$ondences bet-een t e u)!n s$irit !nd n!ture.

/0

Part One

,illiam ,ordsworth (177061850) Words-ort is< !bo>e !((< t e $oet of re)e)br!nce of t in%s $!st< or !s e i)se(f $ut it in t e 'ref!ce to Lyrical Ballads (2nd ed.< 1800)< of 5emotion recollected in tran)"illity .7 So)e obIect or e>ent in t e $resent tri%%ers ! sudden rene-!( of fee(in%s e !d e:$erienced in yout G t e resu(t is ! $oe) e: ibitin% t e s !r$ discre$!ncy bet-een - !t Words-ort c!((ed 5t-o consciousnesses7: i)se(f !s e is no- !nd i)se(f !s e once -!s. & e $!st t !t e reco((ected -!s one of )o)ents of (u)inous intensity< !nd of e)otion!( tur)oi( - ic is ordered< in t e c!()er $resent< into ! !rd6-on e;ui(ibriu). & e resu(t is ! $oetry of e:cit!tion in c!()G %enius< !s Words-ort s!ys in is )!ster$iece< The Prelude (be%un in 1798G $ub(is ed $ost u)ous(y in 1850)< is 5born to t ri>e by interc !n%e 8 +f $e!ce !nd e:cit!tion.7 *s ti)e -ent on< o-e>er< t e $rec!rious e;ui(ibriu) of is %re!t cre!ti>e $eriod bec!)e ! !bit< !nd Words-ort fin!((y %!ined - !t< in t e Ode to Duty (-ritten 180/)< e (on%ed for< 5! re$ose - ic e>er is t e s!)e7 C but !(so ! )!nneris). Fet is critic!( consider!tions !re consistent(y de)ocr!tic !nd o$en6)inded. Words-ort i)$(icit(y denies t e tr!dition!( !ssu)$tion t !t t e $oetic %enres constitute ! ier!rc y< fro) e$ic !nd tr!%edy !t t e to$ do-n t rou% co)edy< s!tire< $!stor!(< to t e s ort (yric !t t e (o-er re!c es of t e $oetic sc!(eG e !(so reIects t e c(!ssic!( $rinci$(e of decorum. .e defines $oetry !s 5t e bre!t !nd finer s$irit of !(( @no-(ed%eN. 'oetry is t e first !nd (!st of !(( @no-(ed%e C it is !s i))ort!( !s t e e!rt of )!n.7 & e $oet is 5! )!n s$e!@in% to )en<7 i)$!rtin% t e ric ness of is e!rt !nd %i>in% 5i))edi!te $(e!sure to ! u)!n ?ein%7 - o !(so res$onds -it is e!rt. W en Words-ort !sserted in t e 'ref!ce t !t e de(iber!te(y c ose to re$resent 5incidents !nd situ!tions fro) co))on (ife<7 e tr!ns(!ted is de)ocr!tic sy)$!t ies into critic!( ter)s< Iustifyin% is use of $e!s!nts< outc!sts< cri)in!(s< !nd idiot boys !s serious subIects of $oetic !nd e>en tr!%ic concern. .e !(so undertoo@ to -rite in 5 a selection of lang"age really "sed by men <7 on t e %rounds t !t t ere c!n be no 5essenti!( difference bet-een t e (!n%u!%e of $rose !nd )etric!( co)$osition7 C i.e.< no (o%ic!( Iustific!tion for decorum. & e on(y criteri! for t e se(ection< !ccordin% to Words-ort < !re true t!ste !nd fee(in%. & e e;ui>!(ence e found bet-een t e $ro$er (!n%u!%e of $oe)s !nd $rose (!n%u!%e is not one of >oc!bu(!ry or of synt!:< but ! s!)eness in e)otion!( %enesis. Inste!d of consistin% in contri>ed !nd !rtfu( constructions< bot for)s of (!n%u!%e ori%in!te s$ont!neous(y< !s t e -ords !nd fi%ures t !t !re t e )ost f!it fu( e:$ression of fee(in%. Words-ort =s !ssertions !bout t e )!teri!(s !nd diction of $oetry !>e been %re!t(y inf(uenti!( in e:$!ndin% t e r!n%e of serious (iter!ture to inc(ude co))on $eo$(e !nd ordin!ry t in%s !nd e>ents< !s -e(( !s in Iustifyin% ! $oetry of sincerity r!t er t !n of !rtifice< e:$ressed in t e ordin!ry (!n%u!%e of its ti)e. Words-ort !(so !ttributed to i)!%in!ti>e (iter!ture t e $ri)!ry ro(e in @ee$in% u)!n bein%s e)otion!((y !(i>e !nd )or!((y sensiti>e C t !t is< @ee$in% t e) essenti!((y u)!n C in t e )odern er!. & e ti)e of tec no(o%ic!( !nd incre!sin%(y urb!n society< -it its

Part One

/1

)!ss )edi! !nd )!ss cu(ture< t re!tens< !s e fores!-< to b(unt t e )ind=s 5discri)in!tory $o-ers7 !nd to 5reduce it to ! st!te of !()ost s!>!%e tor$or.7 2o ot er boo@ of $oe)s in 1n%(is !nnounces ! ne- (iter!ry de$!rture )ore $(!in(y t !n Words-ort =s Lyrical Ballads !nd its 'ref!ce. Fet< o-e>er r!dic!( t eir $!rticu(!r !$$(ic!tion by Words-ort < t e >!(ues t !t $er)e!te is 'ref!ce !re t e centr!( u)!nistic >!(ues of t e 18 t 6century 1n(i% ten)ent C t !t is< t e use< !s ! st!nd!rd< of e(e)ents t !t e re$resents !s essenti!(< si)$(e< uni>ers!(< !nd $er)!nent in u)!n n!ture.
Remember? 'ere is ho( .avi$ .ai!hes sums up more than t(o !enturies of ;nglish !riti!ism along the lines of poeti! orm8 In t e 'ref!ce< Words-ort N-!s not c(e!r on t e ;uestion of o- t e $oet=s !i) !ffected is -!y of -ritin% !nd of o- ! $oe)< !s !n indi>idu!( -or@ of (iter!ry !rt< differs fro) ot er for)s of e:$ression. & e )etric!( e(e)ent in $oetry e tended to re%!rd !s !n o$tion!( !dorn)ent< !nd !s for t e ;uestion of $oetic dictionNsince $oetry concerns itse(f -it %r!nd e(e)ent!( f!cts !bout )!n !nd n!ture< t e $oet s ou(d !>oid 5tr!nsitory !nd !ccident!( orn!)ents7 !nd use si)$(e !nd e(e)ent!( (!n%u!%e. & e o(d $rob(e) of t e re(!tion of for) !nd content -!s t us sti(( unreso(>ed. W i(e not )!int!inin%< !s 'o$e !nd Dr Qo nson -ou(d !>e< t !t ! $oe) is t e !nd(in% of t e $!r!$ r!se!b(e content in s@i(fu( !nd $(e!sin% >ersific!tion< !nd insistin% on t e uni;ueness of t e $oet=s @ind of $erce$tion< e did not )!@e c(e!r ot !t uni;ue $erce$tion ine>it!b(y sou% t its uni;ue(y !$$ro$ri!te for) C indeed< e see)ed to be content to re%!rd t e for) !s in %re!ter or (ess de%ree suit!b(e r!t er t !n uni;ue(y !$$ro$ri!te. 4or SidneyN$oetry -!s t e cre!tion of !n ide!( -or(d< but t !t ide!( -or(d !d to be $resented in ! $ersu!si>e )!nner so t !t t e re!der -ou(d be )o>ed to i)it!te it: t us t ou% Sidney )!de ! c(e!r difference bet-een for) !nd content e !ssi%ned ! definite ro(e to e!c . Si)i(!r(y< Dryden insisted t !t t e $oet $resent 5! Iust !nd (i>e(y i)!%e of u)!n n!ture<7 !nd if t e Iustness -!s ! )!tter of content or $(ot< t e (i>e(iness cou(d on(y be %u!r!nteed by t e $ro$er @ind of sty(e or for). 4or Words-ort t e >it!(ity of t e $oet=s $erce$tion see)ed to %u!r!ntee bot its o-n Iustness !nd (i>e(iness< !nd t e - o(e for)6content $rob(e) is (eft in t e !ir. (D!ic es 9768)

In The Prelude< Words-ort c !n%es t e " risti!n s$iritu!( istory in ! r!dic!( -!y< by con>ertin% !ny su$ern!tur!( !%ency of cre!tion into secu(!r !nd u)!nistic ter)s. & e true $rot!%onist of Words-ort =s $oe) turns out to be ! $o-er in is o-n )ind< - ic is c!$!b(e of tr!nsfor)in% t e n!tur!( -or(d -it - ic it inter!ctsG e c!((s t is $o-er 5*magination.7 5& is f!cu(ty<7 e re>e!(s in t e (!st boo@< 5 !t been t e feedin% source 8 +f our (on% (!bour<7 !nd e %oes on to s!y t !t t e !ccount of its !$$e!r!nce< de>e(o$)ent< (oss< !nd restor!tion !s constituted t e sub)er%ed $(ot of t e $oe) in its entirety. The Prelude !s Iust(y been c!((ed t e %re!test re(i%ious $oe) of t e 19t century< u$ o(din% ! f!it in t e redee)in% $o-er of 5t e )ind of )!n7 - ic < t e c(osin% (ines dec(!re< co)$!red -it t e unc !n%in% e!rt < 5In be!uty e:!(ted< !s it is itse(f 8 +f ;u!(ity !nd f!bric )ore di>ine.7

/2

Part One

Sam"el Taylor Coleridge (17726183/) In Biographia Literaria (1817)< !s -e(( !s ot er of is -ritin%s< "o(erid%e=s !tte)$t to re)edy Words-ort =s o>er(oo@in% of t e issue of for)< t ou% fr!%)ent!ry< >ery !)bitious(y (e!ds t e $ i(oso$ ic!( en;uiry into t e n!ture !nd >!(ue of $oetry to !n entire(y ne- (e>e(. .e r!ises ;uestions re%!rdin% t e distin%uis in% c !r!cteristics t !t se$!r!te $oetry fro) ot er uses of (!n%u!%e. #ore i)$ort!nt(y< e is concerned -it t e -!y in - ic t e $oints of difference !re Iustified by t e function !nd n!ture (5obIect !nd contents7) of ! $oe). D!ic es e:$(!ins:
& is is - !t )i% t be c!((ed t e onto(o%ic!( !$$ro!c : (et us (oo@ !t t is $ eno)enon !nd see - !t it is !nd t en see if -e c!n !ccount for - !t it is in ter)s of - !t it does. Sidney t!(@ed !bout - !t $oetry )i% t be )!de to doG Dryden of - !t it s ou(d doG Words-ort of - !t -ent on in t e $oet=s )indG but "o(erid%e< usin% *ristot(e=s )et od t ou% not (oo@in% in ;uite t e s!)e -!y !t ;uite t e s!)e $ eno)en!< restores $ i(oso$ ic!( res$onsibi(ity to t e est etic in;uiry. (101)

&o i)< su$er!dded orn!)ents< )eter !nd r y)e !re of no re(e>!nce un(ess t ey !re dict!ted by t e content. & e for) of t e $oe) is organic< s !$ed by t e content< r!t er t !n )ec !nic!(< i.e.< dict!ted by (iter!ry con>entions:
* $oe)< t erefore< )ust be !n or%!nic unity in t e sense t !t< - i(e -e note !nd !$$reci!te e!c $!rt< to - ic t e re%u(!r recurrence of !ccent !nd sound dr!!ttention< our $(e!sure in t e - o(e de>e(o$s cu)u(!ti>e(y out of suc !$$reci!tion< - ic is !t t e s!)e ti)e $(e!sur!b(e in itse(f !nd conduci>e to !n !-!reness of t e tot!( $!ttern of t e co)$(ete $oe). (D!ic es 102)

*nd (!ter:
4or) )!y yie(d $(e!sure !nd $(e!sure )!y in itse(f be >!(u!b(eG but true or%!nic for) is !n !c ie>e)ent of t e i)!%in!tion !nd !s suc (!t (e!st ide!((y) Obrin%s t e - o(e sou( of )!n into !cti>ity.= It is in t e (!st !n!(ysis t rou% is ne- definition of t e i)!%in!tion t !t "o(erid%e is !b(e to esc!$e co)$(ete(y fro) '(!to=s di(e))!. (D!ic es 110) Q1: .is!uss Wor$s(orths A$e8 Intimations of Immortalit) in terms of <oleri$ges 6organi! form.7 Q2: 'o( $oes <oleri$ge $efine 6imagination7 an$ 6fan!)7?

"o(erid%e=s yout fu( ent usi!s)s !d been in t e )!in si)i(!r to Words-ort =s. ?y t e end of 1803< o-e>er< e -!s re$udi!tin% Words-ort =s n!ture6-ors i$< )!in(y bec!use e !d co)e to (oc!te t e source of )or!( e>i( in sub)ission to t e senses. .is c!rdin!( doctrine no- -!s t e freedo) !nd initi!ti>e of t e )or!( -i(( C t e di>ine s$!r@ in e!c of us< t e u(ti)!te resource !(i@e of re(i%ious f!it !nd of %enuine $erce$tion. It is !$$!rent(y t e s!)e !s t e 5 Primary *magination7 of !n or!cu(!r $!ss!%e in Biographia< n!)e(y 5! re$etition in t e finite )ind of t e etern!( !ct of cre!tion in t e infinite I *#.7 L!ter on e )o>ed

Part One

/"

c(oser to t e tr!dition!( " risti!n re(i%ion. Since Hod -!s no- not in 2!ture but o)ni$resent outside it< t e $oet=s sense of - o(eness< of union -it Hod< cou(d not be ! sin%(e decisi>e re>e(!tion< but )ust be ! $ro%ressi>e de>e(o$)ent of ! $er$etu!( re6cre!tion. & us< $oetic or 5 Secondary7 *magination is defined in Biographia !s deri>!ti>e fro) t e cre!ti>e -i((< t e conscious u)!n use of t e cre!ti>e $o-erG it is essenti!((y >it!( !nd ide!(isin%. *s e>ery- ere in "o(erid%e=s critic!( -ritin%s< t e $oetic i)!%in!tion i)$oses unity on its )!teri!(G but ere< !(t ou% is intention -!s to distin%uis bet-een Fancy !nd I)!%in!tion< t e (!tter st!nds - ere t e Hree@ 4!ncy !d stood< - ere!s is 4!ncy is )ere(y t e c!$!city to dr!- (o%ic!( conc(usions fro) t e d!t! !>!i(!b(e (see c !$ter 13 of Biographia). .e !(so dr!-s ! distinction bet-een $oe) !nd $oetry< t e (!tter bein% ! )uc -ider s$ecies t !t inc(udes t e -or@ of $!inters< $ i(oso$ ers !nd scientists !s -e(( !s $oets< !nd - ic 5brin%s Ot e - o(e sou( of )!n= into !cti>ity< -it e!c f!cu(ty $(!yin% its $ro$er $!rt !ccordin% to its Ore(!ti>e -ort !nd di%nity.= & is t!@es $(!ce - ene>er t e Osecond!ry i)!%in!tion= co)es into o$er!tion7 (D!ic es 103). 'oetry is t e $roduct of t e 5 esemplastic $o-er7 of t e $oet C ! ter) "o(erid%e coined to n!)e t e $oet=s c!$!city to synt esise !nd inte%r!te e)$iric!( $erce$tion into ! co)$(e: unity %o>erned by its o-n (!-s. & is 5unifyin% $o-erNen!b(es !(( t e f!cu(ties to be brou% t into $(!y si)u(t!neous(y< e!c $(!yin% its $ro$er $!rt< to $roduce ! co)$(e: synt esis of co)$re ension7 (103). .is $oetry !(so -!s often concerned -it t e -or@in% of t e )ind !nd t e ro(e of i)!%in!tion in orderin% !nd )!@in% sense of e:$erience. In Biographia Literaria "o(erid%e st!tes t !t is ro(e in t e Ioint $oetic e:$eri)ent of t e Lyrical Ballads -!s to cre!te 5$ersons !nd c !r!cters su$ern!tur!(< or !t (e!st ro)!nticG yet so !s to tr!nsfer fro) our in-!rd n!ture ! u)!n interest !nd ! se)b(!nce of trut sufficient to $rocure for t ese s !do-s of i)!%in!tion t !t willing s"s%ension of disbelief for t e )o)ent< - ic constitutes $oetic f!it 7 ()y e)$ !sis). In ot er -ords< to e)$(oy second!ry i)!%in!tion in cre!tin% $(!usib(e fiction by dr!-in% on< !nd unifyin%< e:$erience< !s in The ,ime of the Ancient %ariner. "o(erid%e -!s ! $oet !nd $ i(oso$ er by c!((in%< !nd t ese t-o >oc!tions -ent !nd in !nd -it i). .is )!in -or@ -!s to tr!nsfor) t e )ec !nistic $syc o(o%y of t e 18t century !nd to initi!te ! re!ction !%!inst it. .e re>i>ed t e o(der tr!dition of '(!tonis) !nd introduced to 1n%(!nd t e ne- ide!(is) of Her)!ny. .e set out to e:$(ore t e unconscious -or@in%s of t e )ind C 5t e terra incognita of our n!ture7 C for $oetry. .e co)$(eted t e re>o(ution of t!ste - ic !s ent roned S !@es$e!re !s ! %enius no (ess re)!r@!b(e for is Iud%e)ent t !n is in>enti>eness. #ore t !n !ny ot er of t e 1n%(is 0o)!ntics< e brou% t !bout t e re>o(ution in (iter!ry t ou% t t !t consists in re%!rdin% t e i)!%in!tion !s t e so>erei%n cre!ti>e $o-er< e:$ressin% t e %ro-t of ! - o(e $erson!(ity. *(( t e $ub(is ed $rose of t e second !(f of is (ife< inc(udin% Biographia Literaria< consists of fr!%)ents !nd di%ressions -renc ed fro) i) by t e occ!sion< but intended !s $re$!r!ti>es for ! >!st $ i(oso$ ic!( undert!@in%< - ic "o(erid%e t ou% t of !s is counter$!rt to Words-ort =s Prelude.

//

Part One

Q: ,a+e a list of the !riti!s $is!usse$ so far (ho approa!he$ 5ha+espeare $e!isivel).

Percy $isshe Shelley (179261822) D!ic es introduces S e((ey !s fo((o-s:

S e((ey=s Defence of Poetry< -ritten in 1821 !nd $ub(is ed in 18/0< -!s ori%in!((y concei>ed !s t e defense of t e >!(ue of $oetry !%!inst t e !r%u)ents brou% t for-!rd by & o)!s Lo>e 'e!coc@ in The .our Ages of Poetry A1820B t !t $oetry !d out(i>ed its usefu(ness !nd in !n !%e of @no-(ed%e< re!son< !nd en(i% ten)ent !$$e!(ed on(y to obscur!ntis) !nd su$erstition. ?ut !s t e -or@ de>e(o$ed t e $o(e)ic e(e)ent dis!$$e!red !nd t e ess!y e)er%ed !s ! (!r%e t eoretic!( st!te)ent of t e n!ture !nd >!(ue of $oetry )ode(ed in %ener!( sty(e on Sidney=s Defence t ou% (!c@in% t e si)$(e did!cticis) so i)$ort!nt to Sidney=s $osition. S e((ey=s !r%u)ent is conducted in ter)s of $!ssion!te !bstr!ctions< !nd in t is res$ect is re)iniscent of so)e of t e %re!t ren!iss!nce critic!( docu)ents. It is in ! sense !n !n!c ronis)< for< t ou% S e((ey fo((o-s "o(erid%e in is stress on t e function of t e i)!%in!tion< e is not de>e(o$in% "o(erid%e=s $osition but re6inter$retin% it in t e (i% t of is o-n '(!tonic ide!(is). S e((ey=s interest !s ! critic< indeed< (ies (!r%e(y in is use of '(!tonic ide!s to esc!$e fro) t e '(!tonic di(e))!< !nd e does t is by reco%niEin% t !t t e $oet< t rou% is use of t e i)!%in!tion< co)es direct(y into cont!ct -it t e -or(d of '(!tonic ide!s< !nd so -it true re!(ity< inste!d of si)$(y i)it!tin% t e ref(ections of t ose ide!s< !s '(!to i)se(f c(!i)ed. (11162)

*s for "o(erid%e< for S e((ey 5!ny e:ercise of t e i)!%in!tion - ic brou% t one into cont!ct -it t e '(!tonic ide! under(yin% t e ordin!ry $ eno)en! of e:$erience -!s< in t e (!r%er sense< $oetry7 (112). .e ent usi!stic!((y $roc(!i)s $oetry to be of di>ine ori%in in t e '(!tonic sense< !nd to enco)$!ss t e best of u)!n t ou% t in !(( do)!ins< (e%is(!tion !nd $o(itics inc(uded. "onse;uent(y< t e $oe)< ere too< is )ere(y ! s$ecies of $oetry< but ! $ri>i(e%ed one< since its )ediu) is (!n%u!%e.
L!n%u!%e is t e )ost effecti>e ser>!nt of t e i)!%in!tion bec!use t e i)!%in!tion itse(f $roduces it for its o-n needs< - i(e t e )edi! of t e ot er !rts e:ist in t e e:tern!( -or(d inde$endent(y of t e !rtist !nd t eir $osition in t e e:tern!( -or(d (i)its t eir effecti>eness !s )e!ns of e:$ressin% !n i)!%in!ti>e >isionN. .!r)ony of utter!nce< !c ie>ed by t e $ro$er c oice of -ords !nd t e re(!tion of sound to senseNis $!rt of t e -!y in - ic t e i)!%in!tion !c ie>es ! corres$ondence -it t e ide!( orderN. Sound !nd sense co)e to%et er !s !n or%!nic - o(e (D!ic es 1156 3)<

e>en t ou% t e %re!t !r)onisin% $o-ers of t e i)!%in!tion )!y !t ti)es )!nifest t e)se(>es in indi>idu!( -ords !nd $ r!ses on(y. It is by sti)u(!tin% !nd stren%t enin% i)!%in!tion t !t t e $oet !c ie>es )or!( %ood. 'oetry does not te!c )or!(s direct(y< by $ro>idin% e:!)$(es of %ood be !>iourG neit er does it $ur%e t e e)otions t rou% $ity !nd fe!r< !s *ristot(e -ou(d !>e it: suc $reoccu$!tions defe!t t eir >ery $ur$ose. ?ut in stren%t enin% i)!%in!tion< !nd t us t e $ositi>e !ffections< $oetry is bot !n instru)ent of )or!( %ood !nd of se(f6@no-(ed%e. S e((ey does not c!rry t ese ide!s to t eir (o%ic!(

Part One

/.

conc(usions in !est etic ter)s< but $roceeds to e)$ !sise t e re(!tions i$ bet-een $oetry !nd society< !nd es$eci!((y t e ro(e of t e $oet in i)$osin% ! >ision of t e ide!( order !s !$$re ended by i)!%in!tion. .e s$e!@s in %r!ndiose ter)s of $oetry !s 5t e record of t e best !nd !$$iest )o)ents of t e !$$iest !nd best )inds<7 - i(e 5$oets !re t e "nac5nowledged legislators of the world.7 *s D!ic es e:$(!ins< t is is ! 5 i% '(!tonic ide!(is) turned !%!inst '(!to=s !tt!c@ on $oetry to defend t e >ery !cti>ity - ic '(!to >!(ued )ost (i.e.< $ i(oso$ ic!( conte)$(!tion of t e ide!( order)7 (128). S e((ey=s >!(ue !s ! (iter!ry t eoretici!n resides in is ent usi!stic !tte)$t to con>ey ! sense of t e si%nific!nce of $oetry< !n !tte)$t t !t Ioins t e u)!nist s$irit of t e 0en!iss!nce -it t e s!n%uin!ry ide!(is) of t e 0o)!ntic !%e. & e $oe)s of S e((ey=s )!turity !(so s o- t e inf(uence of is study of '(!to !nd t e 2eo$(!tonists. Fet )!ny of is $oe)s ref(ect is sense of t e (i)its of cert!in @no-(ed%e !nd is refus!( to (et is intuitions !nd o$es !rden into ! $ i(oso$ ic!( or re(i%ious creed. &o t e sce$tic!( ide!(is) of t e )!ture S e((ey< t e o$e in t e u(ti)!te rede)$tion of (ife by (o>e !nd i)!%in!tion is not ! cert!inty but ! )or!( ob(i%!tion. We )ust< e !sserts< c(in% to o$e bec!use its contr!ry< des$!ir !bout u)!n $otenti!(< is se(f6fu(fi((in%< by ensurin% t e $er)!nence of t e condition before - ic t e )ind !s surrendered its !s$ir!tions. .o$e does not %u!r!ntee !c ie>e)ent< but it @ee$s o$en t e $ossibi(ity of !c ie>e)ent !nd so re(e!ses t e i)!%in!tion !nd cre!ti>e $o-ers t !t !re t e instru)ents of )or!( %ood.
Q: <an )ou thin+ of an) evi$en!e in 5helle)s poetr) of his interest in Platoni! i$ealism?

The Other (omantics +t er )!Ior ro)!ntic $oets e:$ressed t eir >ie-s< t ou% (ess syste)!tic!((y< on t e n!ture of (iter!ture !nd t e !c ie>e)ents of 1n%(is $oets. 4ohn Keats (179561821)< for inst!nce< ne>er co)$(eted ! critic!( -or@< but so)e of is $ronounce)ents de(i>ered in $ri>!te (etters ref(ect ;uite )e)or!b(y t e -!y in - ic e !bsorbed t e inte((ectu!( !t)os$ ere of is !%e !nd %!>e it ! $erson!( t-ist. .is )ost bri((i!nt st!te)ents !>e t e rin% of )ysticis) !bout t e). In ! (etter to ?enI!)in ?!i(ey (22 2o>e)ber 1817)< Je!ts -rote: 5I !) cert!in of not in% but t e o(iness of t e e!rt=s !ffections !nd t e trut of I)!%in!tion.7 .e !sserts t !t t e $roduct of sensu!( intuition is su$erior to t !t of r!tion!( inte((ect< !nd t !t - !t t e i)!%in!tion records !s ?e!uty is not i((usion but 5trut 7 C !n !ut entic re!(ity C 5- et er it e:isted before or not7 in t e )!teri!( sense. In ! (etter to is brot ers Heor%e !nd & o)!s Je!ts (21 Dece)ber 1817) -e find Je!ts=s c(!ssic definition of 5negati!e ca%ability7: 5- en )!n is c!$!b(e of bein% in uncert!inties< #ysteries< doubts< -it out !ny irrit!b(e re!c in% !fter f!ct !nd re!son.7 & is c!$!bi(ity is e>inced by S !@es$e!re !t is best< !s for e:!)$(e in (ing Lear< - ose intensity ste)s fro) t e 5de$t of s$ecu(!tion e:cited7 in its !udience. S !@es$e!re=s -or@ offers ! direct !nd e)otion!( >ision of t e $!in !nd e>i( of (ife -it out !tte)$tin% to co)$re end !nd e:$(!in itG its r!- $resent!tion de)!nds t e

/2

Part One

inte((ectu!( !nd e)otion!( $!rtici$!tion of t e >ie-er. ?(!)ires co))ents: 5& ere is ! curious !ir of )odernity !bout AJe!ts=sB -i((in%ness to t eorise direct(y fro) se(f< !s $oet !nd )!n of fee(in%< in ! @ind of $ i(oso$ ic!( >!cuu)7 (237). ,illiam $la5e (178761827)< too< $roduced critic!( !$ oris)s< )ost of t e) directed !%!inst - !t e $ercei>ed !s t e y$ocrisy of conte)$or!ry !rtists - o !tte)$ted to define $oetry in ter)s of i)it!tion of n!ture. *ccordin% to ?(!@e< t e $oet=s i)!%in!tion re!c es outside t e -or(d !$$re ended by t e senses into t e s$iritu!( s$ ere. "onse;uent(y< Words-ort is !d!)!nt(y co)b!ted !s 5t e 2!tur!( #!n risin% u$ !%!inst t e S$iritu!( #!n "ontinu!((y< !nd t en e is 2o 'oet but ! .e!t en $ i(oso$ er !t 1n)ity !%!inst !(( true 'oetry or Ins$ir!tion.7 In t e -ords of .!rry ?(!)ires< 5?(!@e=s e)$ !sis on i)!%in!tion !nd ins$ir!tion< !nd Words-ort =s e)$ !sis on t e $ri)!cy of fee(in% (Ot e s$ont!neous o>erf(o- of $o-erfu( fee(in%=) !c;uired in t e one c!se ! )ystic!( di)ension !nd in t e ot er c!se ! )or!( di)ension - ic introduced !n e(e)ent of se(f6disci$(ine7 (233). & is se(f6disci$(ine -!s to ! cert!in e:tent si)i(!r to t !t i)$osed by S e((ey=s !nti6 '(!tonic '(!tonis) !nd "o(erid%e=s " risti!nity< but it -!s so)et in% t !t Je!ts -is ed to !>e no s !re in. ?(!@e=s inde$endence of )ind !ccounts for t e inf(uence e !d on t e !est etic t in@in% of t e (!te 19t century. We !>e seen t !t S e((ey=s Defence of Poetry -!s -ritten in ! 5s!cred r!%e7 $ro>o@ed by !n ess!y by t e $oet Thomas Lo!e Peacoc5 (178561833). In is 54our *%es of 'oetry7 (1820)< 'e!coc@ $oses t e (e%iti)!te ;uestion of - et er< in ! )odern scientific !%e - en $ i(oso$ ers !nd scientists c!n in>esti%!te re!(ity syste)!tic!((y !nd ri%orous(y !nd $eo$(e !>e out%ro-n t e )yt s of $oetry< t e $oet !s not beco)e !n !n!c ronis)< ! 5se)i6b!rb!ri!n in ! ci>i(ised co))unity.7 I)$(icit(y t is r!ised t e issue of t e function !nd trut of $oetry< of t e -!y in - ic it cou(d be inte%r!ted in t e )indset of )odern society. .is ;uestion -!s to be t!@en u$ -it incre!sed ur%ency t rou% out t e 19 t !nd 20t centuries. & e essay -!s ! f!>ourite (iter!ry for) -it t e outst!ndin% t in@ers of t e nineteent century. It offered t e $ossibi(ity of t!c@(in% ! %re!t >!riety of to$ics: (iter!ry< $o(itic!(< istoric!(< econo)ic< )or!(G it !((o-ed !t t e s!)e ti)e for ! %re!t freedo) of e:$ression. #!ny 0o)!ntic Iourn!(ists found it ! %enuine )ediu) for e:$ressin% o$inions on (iter!ture. ,illiam Ha6litt (177861830) -rote ! >!riety of unsyste)!tic< i)$ressionistic ess!ys !nd (ectures on $!rticu(!r -riters !nd e>en $ i(oso$ ers. .is descri$ti>e !$$ro!c is sti)u(!tin% !nd infectious< !nd is sty(e is c !r!cterised by >it!(ity< ent usi!s)< !rdour< !nd %usto< !(t ou% is o$inions !re not !(-!ys correct or $ertinent. Thomas 'e 7"incey (178561859) -!s !n e;u!((y re!d!b(e Iourn!(ist !nd ess!yist - o tended to enc!$su(!te $syc o(o%ic!( !s$ects of t e -riters e Iud%ed< !nd c ose to do so -it resort to ! ric co((ection of $erson!( !necdotes. .e s !red in t e ro)!ntic re!$$r!is!( of t e re(!tions i$ bet-een re!son !nd i)!%in!tion< !nd de>ised ! $rinci$(e of (iter!ry $o-er - ic e c!((ed 5!nt!%onis)7 C t e resu(t of t e co((ision of t e i)!%ery of cities< cro-ds< !nd !rtistry< -it t !t of rest< so(itude !nd $ri)!( innocence. * r!t er in!$t critic but ent usi!stic Iourn!(ist -!s Leigh H"nt (178/61859)< - ose )!in contribution -!s to c !)$ion !nd !cc(!i) t e %re!t $oets !)on% is conte)$or!ries (c ief(y

Part One

/,

S e((ey< ?yron !nd Je!ts)< often in t e f!ce of ridicu(e !nd osti(ity. .is Scottis counter$!rt< Francis 4effrey (177361850)< -!s ! discernin% !nd Iudicious re>ie-er< -it ! bro!d !$$reci!ti>e r!n%e. *n e;u!((y distin%uis ed contributor to t e (iter!ry Iourn!(s of t e d!y< !nd es$eci!((y to t e &ory Scottis ;uarterly ,e!ie1< -!s Sir ,alter Scott (177161832). .is Li!es of the 0o!elists re$resents ! -ort y successor of Dr Qo nson=s Li!es of the Poets in s o-in% ! co)$!r!b(e -ei% t of %ood sense !nd (iter!ry sy)$!t y brou% t to be!r on ! >!riety of -riters< !)on% - o) )ost $ro)inent(y fi%ure 0ic !rdson< 4ie(din%< S)o((ett< Sterne< !nd Q!ne *usten. .e fo((o-s Dr. Qo nson in distin%uis in% bet-een t e no>e(< - ic de!(s -it 5t e )odern st!te of society<7 !nd ro)!nce< - ic de$icts 5)!r>e((ous !nd unco))on incidents<7 yet e $oints out t !t not !(( $rose fiction fits ne!t(y into t ese c!te%ories but t ere !re !(so co)bin!tions of t e t-o.
Remember! Wor$s(orth8 6language reall) use$ b) men7: <oleri$ge8 6imagination7: 6organi! form7: 5helle)8 6poets are the una!+no(le$ge$ legislators of the (orl$7: Beats8 6negative !apabilit).7

**+ The /ictorians & e ,ictori!n *%e< ?(!)ires te((s us< 5-!s ! $eriod of i))ense conso(id!tion in ter)s of $e!ce !nd $ros$erity< in ter)s of -e!(t !nd $o-er< !nd in ter)s of !rtistic $roducti>ity7 (259). "onse;uent(y< t e ,ictori!n ess!y is ! con>ers!tion!(< re(!:ed or $ersu!si>e< r etoric!( )od!(ity of tryin% out in discursi>e $rose !n ide! or of $uttin% o>er )or!( ref(ections. It is ! s$iritu!( !d>enture< !n e:cursion into >!rious fie(ds of u)!n cu(ture !nd t ou% t. & e $redo)in!nce of re!son !s !%!inst ro)!nticis) !nd e)otion !$$e!red !s ! resu(t of t e )!r@ed )!teri!( !nd scientific $ro%ress of t e ,ictori!n !%e. & e ne- t eories in t e fie(d of n!tur!( sciences !nd $syc o(o%y o$ened ! ne- er! for $ i(oso$ ic !nd scientific t ou% t. It -!s t e !%e of re(i%ious contro>ersies !nd of t e conf(ict bet-een science !nd re(i%ion on !ccount of D!r-inis) !nd scientific disco>ery. 8tilitarianism !s !n et ic!( doctrine -it econo)ic< Iuridic!( !nd soci!( i)$(ic!tions !d ! consider!b(e inf(uence u$on 19 t 6century t in@in% !nd -!s b!sic!((y for)u(!ted by 4eremy $entham (17/861832)< ! $ i(oso$ er< econo)ist< !nd t eoretic!( Iurist. .is first ess!y in econo)ics< Defence of 6sury (1787)< s o-s t !t e -!s ! disci$(e of *d!) S)it !nd ! su$$orter of t e laisse8-faire $rinci$(es. & e b!sic 9ti(it!ri!n $rinci$(e st!tes t !t !n !ction is ri% t if it !c ie>es t e %re!test %ood for t e (!r%est nu)ber of $eo$(e.
Q: What (oul$ be a utilitarian rea$ing of 4eorge ;liots ,i$$lemar!h? What about William Wor$s(orths 6I (on$ere$ lonel) as a !lou$7?

4ohn St"art -ill (180361873) (!ter on !dded ne- s !des to t is t eory< s o-in% t !t >irtue !nd @no-(ed%e cou(d $roduce !$$iness of ! su$erior @ind. .is

/-

Part One

@ey ide!s -ere e:$ressed in t-o ess!ys $ub(is ed in t e Westminster ,e!ie1< one on Bentham (1838) !nd t e ot er on Coleridge (18/0)< - o !ccordin% to i) re$resented t e t-o )!in tendencies of t e !%e: r!tion!(is)< $r!ctic!(6)indedness< !nd r!dic!(is)< side by side -it t e i)!%in!ti>e !nd conser>!ti>e s$irit. In Auto#iography !nd in is ess!y What 's Poetry< #i(( $ointed out t !t !rt !d ! beneficent< re%ener!ti>e >!(ue t rou% its effects u$on u)!n e)otions. *(t ou% is $reoccu$!tion -it (iter!ture per se is r!t er (i)ited< is -or@ is of %re!t interest !s e de!(s co%ent(y -it t e i)$!ct of society !nd ideo(o%y on t e indi>idu!( )ind. .e %r!du!((y c!)e to reIect so)e of t e uti(it!ri!n st!nd!rds !nd to e:tend !nd !d!$t )ore %enerous ide!s of !rt to t is doctrine. .e -!s !(so critic!( of de)ocr!cies (i@e t !t of t e 9nited St!tes< !nd fores!- t !t t e $ressure to-!rd confor)ity )i% t crus !(( indi>idu!(ity to t e (e>e( e c!((ed ! 5co((ecti>e )ediocrity.7 & rou% out is -ritin%s< e>en in is discussions of t e !d>!nt!%es of soci!(is)< #i(( -!s concerned -it de)onstr!tin% t !t t e indi>idu!( is )ore i)$ort!nt t !n institutions suc !s st!te !nd c urc . Thomas Carlyle (179561881) so $erfect(y ref(ected t e )!in $ro%ressi>e ide!s of t e !%e< t !t e c!)e to be c!((ed t e 5S!%e of " e(se!7 by t e stre!) of >isitors fro) 1n%(!nd< t e "ontinent< !nd t e 9nited St!tes t !t c!)e to (isten to i) ($rob!b(y )ost not!b(e !)on% t e) -!s 0!($ W!(do 1)erson< t e founder of *)eric!n &r!scendent!(is)). +f !(( t e %re!t $ i(oso$ ers of is !%e e co)es c(osest to -riters of (iter!ture (Dr Qo nson< "o(erid%e< Lord ?yron< D... L!-rence)< not on(y bec!use e in effect -rote ! no>e( ( -artor ,esartus)< but es$eci!((y for is -!y -it -ords !nd for is doctrine. & e )ost !$$ro$ri!te ter) to describe is centr!( $osition is 5>it!(is)7: "!r(y(e Iud%es e>eryt in% in ter)s of t e $resence or !bsence of so)e >it!( s$!r@< of ener%y< - ic is in itse(f ! $roof of t e e:istence in t e uni>erse of ! %od e!d< !nd conse;uent(y r!tes $eo$(e< institutions< boo@s< e>en (!ndsc!$es< !s !(i>e or de!d< dyn!)ic or )ere(y )ec !nic!(. .e !(so s$e!@s of t e (i)it!tions of t e conscious !n!(ytic inte((ect !nd $r!ises inste!d t e instincti>e res$onses of t e unconscious(y e!(t y sou(< res$onses t !t inc(ude ! sense of re(i%ious !-e.
Remember? <arl)le is also +no(n to )ou as the (riter (ho in an essa) on <hartism (1C%D" !oine$ the term 6<on$itionEofE;nglan$ Fuestion 7 (hi!h !ame to be asso!iate$ (ith the so!ial novel of the 1C%Gs an$ 1C&Gs.

4ohn ("s5in (181961900) )!de art t e @ey to is >ie- of t e i((s of t e )odern -or(d. %odern Painters< - ic e be%!n -ritin% !t t e !%e of t-enty6t ree !fter is %r!du!tion fro) +:ford< -!s ! defence of t e 1n%(is $!inter Q.#.W. &urner (177561851). & e defence (- ic e -!s to e:tend to fi>e >o(u)es) in>o(>ed 0us@in in $rob(e)s of trut in !rt (!s in t e c !$ter on t e 5 Pathetic Fallacy7) !nd in t e u(ti)!te i)$ort!nce of i)!%in!tion (!s in is discussion of &urner=s $!intin% The -la!e -hip). &o t ese %re!t >irtues e !dds 5ide!s7 in !rt< by - ic e )e!ns )or!( ide!s< - ic !re )e!nt to round u$ our inte((ectu!(

Part One

/+

$erce$tion of be!uty in !rt. In The -tones of )enice e e:$(!ins t e rise of t e Hot ic in ter)s of t e )or!( >irtue of t e society t !t $roduced it< ! society in - ic t e indi>idu!( -or@ers cou(d e:$ress t e)se(>es !nd enIoy t eir -or@< !nd !ttributes its dec(ine to t e dis!$$e!r!nce of t !t >irtue. .is re(!tin% )or!(ity to !rt !s ob>ious s ortco)in%s< but it !((o-ed i) to conduct fierce !tt!c@s on t e ' i(istines of is ti)e< on laisse8-faire econo)ics< )ec !nis!tion< !nd - !t e c!((ed t e 5Hoddess of Hettin%6on.7 *(t ou% e described i)se(f !s 5! >io(ent &ory of t e o(d sc oo( C W!(ter Scott=s sc oo(<7 0us@in -!s re%!rded !s ! r!dic!( eccentric. It -!s )!ny ye!rs before is soci!( criticis) %!ined ! fo((o-in% !)on% -riters !s di>erse !s Wi((i!) #orris< Heor%e ?ern!rd S !-< !nd D... L!-renceG !nd in $!rticu(!r !)on% t e founders of t e ?ritis L!bour $!rty< is inf(uence -!s to be $rofound !nd (!stin%. .is !-!reness of $o((ution !nd of irres$onsib(e (e!ders i$ in )odern industri!(is) !>e resu(ted in t-entiet 6century eco(o%y !nd ecocriticis). .is -!s ! conser>!tis) t !t ide!(ised t e #idd(e *%es for t e ref(ection of )or!( !nd inte((ectu!( >!(ues in !rt< !nd t ese ide!s bec!)e %uidin% (ines for t e 're6 0!$ !e(ites. .e -!s !%!inst t e $ursuit of be!uty for its o-n s!@e< for t e ro(e of !rt -!s to inter$ret !nd edify. In t e tendencies of W!(ter '!ter !nd +sc!r Wi(de !nd in t e $!intin%s of W ist(er e s!- ! reIection of is ide!s !nd ! -orryin% desire to free !rt fro) t e soci!( e:$erience !nd )or!( $rinci$(es - ic e considered to be essenti!( to its e:istence. -atthew Arnold (182261888) 0us@in too@ !rt !s is %uide to t e deficiencies of conte)$or!ry ci>i(is!tionG #!tt e- *rno(d too@ (iter!ture< !nd (iter!ture itse(f e considered to be t e ty%e of 5cu(ture.7 Li@e 0us@in< e de$(ored t e u%(iness !nd uni)!%in!ti>e )!teri!(is) of 1n%(!nd< its (!c@ of 5s-eetness !nd (i% t.7 *t t e s!)e ti)e e be(ie>ed t !t t e 1n%(is )idd(e c(!sses re$resented t e o$e of ci>i(is!tion< !nd e t erefore set i)se(f to educ!te t e). *rno(d -!s ! u)!nist - o de>oted ! (!r%e $!rt of is (ife to de)onstr!tin% t e centr!( $!rt t !t !n !de;u!te (iter!ry cu(ture cou(d !nd s ou(d $(!y in society !nd to rescuin% re(i%ion fro) t e r!tion!(ist scoffin% on t e one !nd !nd t e ri%id fund!)ent!(ists !nd do%)!tics on t e ot er by $ro$oundin% ! 5(iber!(7 " risti!nity b!sed on ! >ie- of t e ?ib(e !s $oetry r!t er t !n !s istory or science< !s 5)or!(ity touc ed by e)otion7 r!t er t !n !s !n inf!((ib(e boo@ of ru(es. 9n(i@e "!r(y(e or &ennyson< *rno(d !d to confine -ritin% to is s$!re ti)e. .e -!s !n ins$ector of sc oo(s for t irty6fi>e ye!rs be%innin% in 1851< !nd bet-een 1857 !nd 1837 e -!s ! $rofessor of $oetry !t +:ford. L!ter< (i@e Dic@ens !nd & !c@er!y before i)< e toured *)eric! to )!@e )oney by (ecturin%. .e -!s ! $oet in !ddition to bein% ! t in@er< !nd !s suc < (i@e &.S. 1(iot !nd W... *uden< *rno(d $ro>ides ! record of ! sic@ indi>idu!( in ! sic@ society. *s ! $rose -riter< ! for)u(!tor of 5ide!s<7 e see@s t e ro(e of t e 5 e!(er7 of t e sic@ society. .e soon !b!ndoned t e -ritin% of $oetry< o-e>er< !s e -!s diss!tisfied -it t e @ind of $oetry e -!s -ritin%. & e ro(e of $oetry !s e sees it is to brin% Ioy< to 5ins$irit !nd reIoice t e re!der<7 to 5con>ey ! c !r)< !nd infuse de(i% t<7 !nd t is does not

.0

Part One

e:c(ude tr!%edy. .is o-n $oetry !d not )et t is st!nd!rdG by turnin% to (iter!ry criticis) is )e(!nc o(y !nd )orbid $erson!(ity -!s subordin!ted to t e reso(ute(y c eerfu( !nd $ur$osefu( persona t !t e !d cre!ted for i)se(f by !n effort of -i((. In is t-o >o(u)es of *ssays on Criticism (1835 !nd 1888) *rno(d t eorised on t e >irtues e sou% t in %ood -ritin%: (!c@ of !dorn)ents< t e ;u!(ity of i% seriousness< did!cticis). In 5& e 4unction of "riticis) !t t e 'resent &i)e7 (183/) it is !$$!rent t !t *rno(d re%!rded %ood (iter!ry criticis)< !s e re%!rded (iter!ture itse(f< !s ! $otent force in $roducin% is ide!( of ! ci>i(ised society. & e ne:t ste$ in is c!reer -!s t e criticism of society t !t cu()in!ted in Culture and Anarchy (1839) !nd .riendship4s 2arland (1871). In t is fie(d is st!rtin% $oint -!s t !t t e ' i(istines -ere not so )uc -ic@ed !s i%nor!nt< n!rro-6)inded< !nd sufferin% fro) t e du((ness of t eir $ri>!te (i>es. .is >ie- of ci>i(is!tion -!s $!red do-n to ! four6$oint for)u(! of 5$o-ers7: conductG inte((ect !nd @no-(ed%eG be!utyG soci!( (ife !nd )!nners. *$$(yin% t is for)u(! to is o-n country< *rno(d !-!rded ,ictori!nis) !n 5*7 for conduct< but ! f!i(in% )!r@ in t e ot er t ree c!te%ories. & e ter) 5c"lt"re7 is $er !$s *rno(d=s )ost i)$ort!nt (e%!cy< !(t ou% - !t e:!ct(y e )e!nt by it !s so)eti)es been )isunderstood. 4or i) it )!in(y connotes t e ;u!(ities of !n o$en6)inded inte((i%ence< t e refus!( to t!@e t in%s on !ut ority< !s -e(( !s ! fu(( !-!reness of u)!nity=s $!st !nd ! c!$!city to enIoy t e best -or@s of !rt< (iter!ture< istory !nd $ i(oso$ y t !t !>e co)e do-n to us. *ccordin% to i)< istory is cyc(ic!(< !nd !s ! -!y of >ie-in% (ife in !(( its !s$ects< inc(udin% t e soci!(< $o(itic!(< !nd re(i%ious< ! true inte((ectu!( !t)os$ ere is t e )ost effecti>e -!y of curin% t e i((s of ! sic@ society !nd of re%ener!tin% it. *(t ou% *rno(d ;uotes *ristot(e $rofuse(y< D!>id 0ic ter obser>es<
A isB conce$tion of (iter!ture is f!r fro) t e %ist !nd )et od of t e Poetics: 4or *ristot(e t e $oe)=s on(y duty is to be %ood in t e -!y of its @ind< !nd e reso(ute(y differenti!ted bet-een t e %enres of $oetry !nd bet-een $oetry !nd !(( ot er for)s of cre!ti>ity. *ristot(e=s sense of t e discreteness of !cti>ities !nd t e $ri)!cy of for) o>er content C bot inte((ectu!( !nd s$iritu!( C -ou(d be tot!((y forei%n to *rno(d=s -!y of t in@in%. 4or *rno(d< for) !s !n issue in itse(f ne>er co)es u$. (39/)

& e s!)e co))ent!tor notes t !t e>en t e -ord 5 criticism7 in 5& e 4unction of "riticis) !t t e 'resent &i)e7 does not )e!n strict(y literary criticis): 5It deno)in!tes (iter!ture itse(f !s ! Ocriticis) of (ife.= Liter!ture !nd (iter!ry criticis) !(i@e en%!%e in ! co)$re ensi>e criti;ue of t e entire cu(tureN. Liter!ture is of interest to i) $ri)!ri(y !s !n inde: to !nd ! b!nner of t e society t !t $roduced it7 (39/). Des$ite t is e:!(ted soci!( !-!reness< o-e>er<
*rno(d entire(y in>erts '(!to< for e >ie-s !rt !s one $ossib(e s!(>!tion for !n in u)!ne society r!t er t !n !s ! $otenti!( source of $o((ution in ! uto$i!. Inste!d of bein%< !s in '(!to< ! distortin% )irror of re!(ity< !rt for *rno(d is one -!y of incre!sin% t e !ccur!cy of one=s s$iritu!( >ision C !nd ! correcti>e for t e i((usions of $o(itic!( $ro$!%!nd!. (39/65)

*rno(d=s deter)in!tion t !t -e reco%niEe t e best $roduction of t e u)!n

Part One

.1

s$irit ins$ired 5& e Study of 'oetry7 (1880) !nd its doctrine of 5 to"chstones.7 & e touc stones !re (ines of $oetry t !t su$$osed(y e:e)$(ify t e i% est f(i% ts of cre!ti>ity. W en -e e!r ! (ine of $oetry< *rno(d reco))ends t !t -e co)$!re it i))edi!te(y to t ose (ines in (iter!ture t !t !re )ost sub(i)e< suc !s< e su%%ests< 5'n la sua !olontade e nostra pace 7 in D!nte=s Paradiso< or 5*bsent t ee fro) fe(icity !- i(e7 fro) Hamlet.
Q: .o )ou have tou!hstones of )our o(n i.e. te0ts or Fuotes that )ou regar$ as the best e0pression of the human genius an$ against (hi!h )ou measure all other literar) pro$u!tions?

0ic ter >oices ! co))on $osition in retros$ect:

W i(e it -ou(d be !rd to defend *rno(d=s touc stones !s ! )ode of (iter!ry !n!(ysis< it is i)$ort!nt to underst!nd t eir istoric!( si%nific!nce !s -e(( !s t e %ener!( i)$ort!nce of t e sub(i)e in *rno(d=s t ou% t. *rno(d=s !%e -!s !(so t !t of " !r(es D!r-in !nd .erbert S$encer !nd D!>id 4riedric Str!uss. Wit science be%innin% to under)ine t e tenets of re>e!(ed re(i%ion< -it $ i(oso$ y beco)in% eit er too !bstruse or too $r!%)!tic to $ro>ide conso(!tion !nd so(!ce< *rno(d fe(t t !t $oetry cou(d $ro>ide t e ne- Word for - ic u)!nity -!s (istenin%. 5#ore !nd )ore<7 *rno(d $ro$ esies< 5)!n@ind -i(( disco>er t !t -e !>e to turn to $oetry to inter$ret (ife for us< to conso(e us< to sust!in us. Wit out $oetry< our science -i(( !$$e!r inco)$(eteG )ost of - !t no- $!sses -it us for re(i%ion !nd $ i(oso$ y -i(( be re$(!ced by $oetry.7 "u(ture -ou(d be %rounded in (iter!ture< !nd *rno(d -!s deter)ined t !t if t e cu(ture -!s not to dec(ine or >!nis < t !t found!tion -ou(d !>e to be re>e(!tory of u)!nity=s i% est s$iritu!( !s$ir!tions. (0ic ter 39563)

#!tt e- *rno(d=s contribution -!s f!r -ider t !n t e $ro>ince of (iter!ry criticis) !nd educ!tion< !(t ou% in t ose fie(ds is inf(uence !s s$re!d (i@e -i(dfire fro) I.*. 0ic !rds to t e $resent d!y. Fet - !t e is )ost !$$reci!ted for !t $resent is is ent usi!stic $!rtici$!tion in t e de>e(o$)ent of cu(tur!( t eory !nd criti;ue. .is %re!t )erit -!s to u$ o(d t e centr!(ity of (iter!ture to cu(ture !nd to recu$er!te t e u)!nist ide!( of s$iritu!(ity !nd erudition. ,alter Pater (18396189/) cou(d !>e been t e fo((o-er of eit er 0us@in< -it - o) e s !red !n interest in !rt< or of *rno(d< !s e -!s !(so interested in (iter!ture !nd !d e!rd !nd enIoyed *rno(d=s (ectures - i(e ! student !t +:ford. Fet e soon turned< !()ost un!-!res< in ! co)$(ete(y different direction. -tudies in the History of the ,enaissance< ! co((ection of ess!ys $ub(is ed in 1873< -!s t e first of se>er!( >o(u)es t !t est!b(is ed W!(ter '!ter !s t e )ost i)$ort!nt critic!( -riter of t e (!te ,ictori!n !%e. .e -!s sur$rised !nd e>en !(!r)ed by t e i)$!ct of is -ritin%s on youn% re!ders suc !s +sc!r Wi(de !nd Heor%e #oore. Indeed< is -ritin%s (es$eci!((y is istoric!( no>e( %arius the *picurean< 1885) !>e )uc in co))on -it t e e!rnest6)inded )id6,ictori!n $redecessors. Fet to is disci$(es is -or@ see)ed )ore sub>ersi>e in its ;uiet -!y t !n t e e!d6on !tt!c@s !%!inst tr!dition!( ,ictori!nis) )!de by S-inbourne or S!)ue( ?ut(er. Fet is (ife !s ! ti)id +:ford tutor of c(!ssics is not in contr!st -it t e

.2

Part One

bo(dness of is e%ic"rean $ i(oso$ y< bec!use it is ! $ i(oso$ y concerned in t e (!st !n!(ysis -it t e indi>idu!( sensibi(ity< ne>er -it t e -or(d !t (!r%e. & e -or(d for '!ter e:isted to be !bsorbed into t e refinin% !nd refined (!nd iso(!ted) sensibi(ity. Inste!d of reco))endin% ! continu!tion of t e $!infu( ;uest for &rut t !t !d do)in!ted +:ford in t e d!ys of "!rdin!( 2e-)!n< '!ter !ssured is re!ders t !t t e ;uest -!s $oint(ess. &rut < e s!id< is re(!ti>e. *nd inste!d of ec oin% "!r(y(e=s c!(( to duty !nd soci!( res$onsibi(ity< '!ter re)inded is re!ders t !t (ife $!sses ;uic@(y !nd t !t our on(y res$onsibi(ity is to enIoy fu((y 5t is s ort d!y of frost !nd sun<7 to re(is its sens!tions< es$eci!((y t ose sens!tions $ro>o@ed by -or@s of !rt. In !ddition to bein% ! @ey fi%ure in t e tr!nsition fro) )id6,ictori!nis) to t e 5dec!dence7 of t e 1890s< '!ter is t e -riter of e:e)$(!ry i)$ressionistic criticis). In e!c of is ess!ys e see@s to co))unic!te - !t e c!((ed t e 5s$eci!( uni;ue i)$ression of $(e!sure7 )!de on i) by t e -or@s of so)e !rtist or -riter< !nd in t e first ess!y in t e >o(u)e< entit(ed 5Sty(e<7 e defines t e !rtist !s t e transcriber 5not of t e -or(d< not of )ere f!ct< but of is sense of it.7 .is r!n%e of subIects inc(udes t e di!(o%ues of '(!to< t e $!intin%s of Leon!rdo d! ,inci< t e $(!ys of S !@es$e!re< !nd t e -ritin%s of t e 4renc 0o)!ntic sc oo( of t e 19 t century. In t e fie(d of 1n%(is (iter!ture< $!rticu(!r(y re(e>!nt !re is discri)in!tin% studies on Words-ort < "o(erid%e< or L!)b in is >o(u)e of Appreciations (1889)< !nd is ess!y on t e $oetry of Wi((i!) #orris tit(ed Aesthetic Poetry (1838). & e fin!( sentences of is Appreciations >o(u)e !re ! re>e!(in% indic!tion of '!ter=s critic!( $osition. *fter !>in% !tte)$ted to s o- t e differences bet-een t e c(!ssic!( !nd t e ro)!ntic sc oo(s of !rt< e conc(udes t !t )ost %re!t !rtists co)bine t e ;u!(ities of bot . 5&o discri)in!te sc oo(s< of !rt< of (iter!ture<7 e -rites<
is< of course< $!rt of t e ob>ious business of (iter!ry criticis): but< in t e -or@ of (iter!ry $roduction< it is e!sy to be o>er)uc occu$ied concernin% t e). 4or< in trut < t e (e%iti)!te contention is< not of one !%e or sc oo( of (iter!ry !rt !%!inst !not er< but of !(( successi>e sc oo(s !(i@e< !%!inst t e stu$idity - ic is de!d to t e subst!nce< !nd t e >u(%!rity - ic is de!d to for).

Oscar ,ilde (185/61900) -!s W!(ter '!ter=s )ost bri((i!nt successor< !nd ! st!unc su$$orter of art for art3s sa5e C 5! $ure !est eticis) t !t reIected t e notion of !rt !nd !est etics !s )or!((y u$(iftin% or soci!((y usefu(7 (0ic ter //8). In $(!ys< $ref!ces !nd ess!ys< e e:$oses t e y$ocrisy !nd s !((o-ness of ,ictori!n society !nd $ro$oses !n et os of !)or!( e$icure!nis) (! (ife (i>ed for s$iritu!( intensity).:i 5& e Dec!y of Lyin%7 (1889) is Wi(de=s -ittiest !nd fres est e:$ression of t e 5!rt for !rt=s s!@e7 doctrine t !t e !d (e!rned fro) '!ter. Written !s ! di!(o%ue bet-een t-o ,ictori!n %ent(e)en< t e e!rnest "yri( !nd t e d!ndified ,i>i!n< t e ess!y t!@es u$ t e re(!tions i$ bet-een !rt !nd (ife< or bet-een $oetic !nd (o%ic!( trut < t !t !d been !t t e centre of t e !est etic deb!te since '(!to. *(t ou% !n *ristote(i!n r!t er t !n ! '(!tonist by inc(in!tion< Wi(de en>isions ! %r!nder ro(e for !rt t !n )ere inde$endence. Li@e S e((ey< Wi(de >ie-s t e

Part One

."

c!nonic!( -or@s of !rt !s ! co((ecti>e boo@ of instruction not on(y on $ro$er t ou% t !nd fee(in% but e>en on t e n!ture of e:istence. In ! cruci!( section t !t ec oes t e - i)sic!(ity of Lord .enry Wotton in The Picture of Dorian 2ray< ,i>i!n !tte)$ts to $ro>e t !t !(( (ife C !nd n!ture itse(f C is )ere(y !n i)it!tion of !rt. .e !r%ues t !t $eo$(e )ode( t e)se(>es !nd t eir be !>iour on (iter!ry c !r!cters< f!((in% in (o>e (i@e Qu(iet or co))ittin% suicide (i@e Hoet e=s Wert er. 1>en t e be!utifu( fo%s of t e London !utu)n !re< !ccordin% to i)< t e $roduct of I)$ressionist $!inters (i@e #onet !nd W ist(er. D!>id 0ic ter co))ents:
,i>i!n=s st!te)ents !re e:tre)e !nd is e:!)$(es so)eti)es $er>erse< but is )ost $rofound $oint C often )!de in conte)$or!ry $ost6structur!(ist t ou% t C is t !t n!ture is @no-n to us on(y t rou% cu(ture< - ic fr!)es it !nd )!@es it co)$re ensib(e. Since one cu(ture differs fro) !not er $ri)!ri(y t rou% its !rt< it is indeed !rt t !t instructs !nd defines our sense of t e n!tur!( -or(d. & e fo%s of London )!y !>e been )!de u$ )!teri!((y of co@e !nd co!( s)o@e )i:ed -it -!ter >!$or< but t e sense of t eir $ecu(i!r be!uty c!n be tr!ced to t e I)$ressionists= t!ste for t e >!%ue !nd indefinite. Lon%er !%o< t e t-o6$oint $ers$ecti>e introduced by It!(i!n 0en!iss!nce $!inters of t e (!te fifteent century $er)!nent(y tr!nsfor)ed t e u)!n sense of s$!ce. (//9)

#oreo>er< in t e ,ictori!n *%e of dire uti(it!ri!nis) !nd !bso(ute confor)is)< Wi(de $(e!ds for ! ric er underst!ndin% of t e !est etic !s )uc !s of t e -or(d. D!>id 0ic ter conc(udes: 5Wi(de=s !est eticis) is not )ere(y ! $roduct of t e $ur$(e nineties Ai.e.< t e dec!dent fin de si7cleBG r!t er< is >ision of !rt !s tr!ns>!(uin% !(( >!(ues is re)iniscent of is $redecessor 2ietEsc e< - i(e is sense of cu(ture !s constitutin% t e %round of our e:$eriencin% of t e -or(d -e in !bit see)s to fores !do- t e ide!s of .eide%%er7 (/50). In t is< e is ! forerunner of 'oststructur!(is).
Q: Remember the Prefa!e to The Pi!ture of .orian 4ra)? To (hat an e0tent !an its truisti! pre!epts be sai$ to have been applie$ in the a!tual (riting of the novel?

***+ The American Scene *t t e s!)e ti)e< !cross t e *t(!ntic +ce!n not on(y -!s (iter!ture co)in% into its o-n< but -riters -ere conductin% t eir s !re of en;uirin% into t e n!ture of (iter!ture< t e cre!ti>e )ind of t e $oet< t e s$rin%s of ins$ir!tion !nd i)!%in!tion< !nd t e co)$!r!ti>e !rtistic !nd soci!( >!(ue of $!st !nd current (iter!ry $roductions. (al%h ,aldo #merson (1803682)< t e )ost co erent $ro$onent of !n ori%in!( *)eric!n $ i(oso$ y< co))on(y @no-n !s &r!nscendent!(is)< -!s !(so !)on%st t e first to t!c@(e suc issues. In 5& e *)eric!n Sc o(!r7 (1837)< e $(e!ds t !t t e trut t !t t e re!der finds in ! te:t is not intrinsic< (yin% dor)!nt in itG r!t er< t e ri% t @ind of re!din% is t e resu(t of t e trut t !t re!ders brin% -it t e). & is $ro$osition -!s to re6e)er%e in t e t-entiet century in 0e!der6 0es$onse "riticis). Fet t e sc o(!r=s $ro$er occu$!tion is not re!din% but -ritin%< - ic is ! for) of conte)$(!tion< of trut see@in%. 1)erson=s )ost e:$(icit (iter!ry tr!ct is entit(ed 5& e 'oet.7 It -!s $ub(is ed in is second series of *ssays (18//)<

./

Part One

!nd (i@e )!ny of is effusions< it $re!c es r!t er t !n !n!(yses its to$ic. 5& e 'oet7 ;uic@(y e:$!nds fro) its ostensib(e subIect to inc(ude )!ny of 1)erson=s centr!( ide!s< - ic stron%(y rese)b(e t e )ystic!( >ie-s of '(otinus. D!>id 0ic ter e:$(!ins:
W ere '(otinus=s %od6ter) -!s 5& e +ne<7 1)erson=s is t e 5+>er6Sou(<7 ! $!nt eistic s$iritu!( entity - erein e>eryt in% (i>in% is united< t e u(ti)!te source of trut < %oodness< !nd be!uty. & e uni>erse itse(f< in its )!teri!(ity< is )ere(y ! $ ysic!( sy)bo(< !n e)b(e)< of t e +>er6Sou(. *nd t e $!rts !re !s t e - o(e: 1!c e(e)ent in t e )!teri!( -or(d is sy)bo(ic of s$iritu!( trut s. (372) Q: .efine Trans!en$entalism an$ $etail its impa!t on the Ameri!an ethos.

In t is conte:t< t e $oet is defined !s 5t e indi>idu!( - o c!n tr!nscend indi>idu!(ity< - o t rou% t e $rofession!( )!ni$u(!tion of sy)bo(s !nd fi%ures underst!nds best t e i% est trut s !bout t e re(!tions i$ bet-een )!tter !nd s$irit7 (0ic ter 373). & e co))ent!tor %oes on:
1)erson consistent(y de!(s -it $oetry< !s it -!s understood by J!nt !nd "o(erid%e< !s t e $roduct of t e cre!ti>e i)!%in!tion. In t is sense< !ny %re!t s$iritu!( t in@er is ! $oet. 1)erson=s $oet is not< o-e>er< t e )!@er of poems< (in%uistic for)s in )e!sured (!n%u!%e. .is ess!y e)bodies inste!d< e>en )ore t !n S e((ey=s Defence of Poetry< ! e!>en6!scendin% co)$endiu) of ro)!ntic ide!s !bout t e $oet !s ide!(ist. (0ic ter 373)

#dgar Alan Poe (18096/9)< in !ddition to bein% one of t e )ost co(ourfu( !nd incitin% $oets !nd $rose -riters of t e 19t century< !s !(so be;ue!t ed us ! (!r%e !nd >!ried co((ection C in f!ct t e bu(@ of is co((ected -or@s C of re>ie-s !nd !rtic(es on t e !rt of -ritin%. It is s!id t !t
N is )ost !bidin% !)bition -!s to beco)e ! $o-erfu( critic. Qust !s e !d )ode(ed is $oe)s !nd first t!(es on ?ritis e:!)$(es (or ?ritis i)it!tions of t e Her)!n)< e too@ is critic!( conce$ts fro) tre!tises on !est etics by (!te618 t 6century Scottis "o))on Sense $ i(oso$ ers ((!ter )odified by is borro-in%s fro) *.W. Sc (e%e( !nd "o(erid%e) !nd too@ is st!nce !s ! re>ie-er fro) t e s(!s in% critics of t e ?ritis ;u!rter(ies.N 'oe=s b!sic critic!( $rinci$(es -ere consistent enou% < o-e>er e de>i!ted fro) t e) in is re>ie-in%.N is criticis) is often do%)!tic !nd se(f6ser>in%< -e!@ened $!rt(y bec!use it -!s !$$(ied to so)e of t e )ost -retc ed -ritin% ! re>ie-er e>er !d to discussN (?!y) et !(. 1/336/)

& e )!in stress in is t eoretic!( out$ours is !(-!ys on foretho"ght !nd effect. & e editors of t e s!)e 0orton Anthology su) u$ is )!in $rinci$(es:
.e t ou% t $oetry s ou(d !$$e!( on(y to t e sense of be!uty< not trut G infor)!tion!( $oetry< $oetry of ide!s< or !ny sort of did!ctic $oetry -!s i((e%iti)!te. .o(din% t !t t e true $oetic e)otion -!s ! >!%ue sensory st!te< e set i)se(f !%!inst re!(istic det!i(s in $oetry< !(t ou% t e $rose t!(e< -it trut !s one obIect< cou(d $rofit fro) t e discreet use of s$ecifics. ?ot $oe)s !nd t!(es s ou(d be s ort enou% to be re!d in one sittin%G ot er-ise t e "nity of effect -ou(d be dissi$!ted. In 'oe=s >ie-< %ood -riters c!(cu(!te t eir effects $recise(y. (1/33)

Part One

..

Remember? In 6The Philosoph) of <omposition7 Poe puts for(ar$ most of these i$eas an$ $is!usses them (ith referen!e to the !reation of his masterpie!e 6The Raven.7

*n e;u!((y interestin% $rose -riter - o !(so e:$ressed critic!( o$inions< t ou% on ! (ess re%u(!r b!sis< -!s 0athaniel Hawthorne (180/63/). .e is %ener!((y !cc(!i)ed !s *)eric!=s finest ro)!ncer< !nd is 'ref!ce to The House of the -e!en 2a#les (1851) offers one of t e )ost co erent definitions of romance in t e *)eric!n conte:t. *ccordin% to i)< !nd !s e:e)$(ified in t !t no>e(< t e *)eric!n istoric!( ro)!nce is ! co)$ound of ob>ious %ot ic6ro)!ntic !s$ects !nd re!(istic de(ine!tion of c !r!cter< e:!(tin% t e *d!)ic ;u!(ity of *)eric!n identity !nd of t e *)eric!n en>iron)ent. W !t sets it !$!rt fro) t e 1uro$e!n tr!dition is its @een !-!reness of istory !s ! continuu). +n t is >ie-< t e *)eric!n ro)!nce is 5c !r!cterised by ! t!n%enti!( re(!tion to soci!( e:$erience< is essenti!((y non6referenti!(< t erefore better !b(e to de!( -it d!r@ !nd co)$(e: trut s un!>!i(!b(e to re!(is)< is sty(istic!((y se(f6conscious !nd tends to use )yt ic< !((e%oric!( !nd sy)bo(ist for)s7 ("(!r@ 57768). .!-t orne=s no>e(s< o-e>er< de!( decisi>e(y !nd un!$o(o%etic!((y -it to$ic!( soci!( !nd $o(itic!( issues suc !s t e doub(e st!nd!rd be ind De)ocr!tic ideo(o%y< t e %o(d rus < t e istory of territori!( e:$ro$ri!tion< $ oto%r!$ y !nd t e et ics of re$resent!tion< etc. ,illiam 'ean Howels (183761920)< ! re)!r@!b(y $ro(ific -riter - o $roduced so)e 135 >o(u)es of -ritin%< inc(udin% t irty6fi>e no>e(s< -!s !t t e centre of *)eric!n cu(tur!( (ife fro) 1833< - en e bec!)e !ssoci!ted -it The Atlantic %onthly< unti( !fter t e turn of t e century. .is )ost si%nific!nt critic!( -or@ is co((ected in Criticism and .iction (1890) fro) co(u)ns e $ub(is ed in Harper4s %onthly st!rtin% in 1883. .is %re!test !sset !s ! critic -!s is ec(ectic t!ste< - ic en!b(ed i) to see >irtues in inno>!ti>e -riters C (i@e t e 4renc !nd *)eric!n n!tur!(ists C t !t ot ers in t !t %entee( !%e conde)ned. 0!t er t !n Iud%e -riters in re(!tion to one !not er or to t e est!b(is ed c!non< e !$$reci!ted t e) for t e de%ree to - ic t ey -ere f!it fu( to u)!n n!ture. ?ut e !(so $ro$osed t !t since *)eric! -!s ! $ros$erous n!tion< *)eric!n no>e(ists s ou(d 5concern t e)se(>es -it t e )ore s)i(in% !s$ects of (ife< - ic !re t e )ore *)eric!n.7 .e est!b(is ed i)se(f !s bot ! %re!t )or!(ist !nd ! >ision!ry $ro)oter of youn% t!(ents.
Remember! In the nineteenth !entur) literar) !riti!ism (as mainl) either philologi!al (i.e. !on!erne$ (ith language8 et)molog) proso$) et!." or histori!al. Three main goals of 1DthE!entur) literar) histor)8 1" !larif) the te0t i.e. establish the $ate of !omposition an$ the authoritative te0t i$entif) the te0ts relation to literature histor) sour!es et!.: #" $es!ribe the author as artist in terms of personal past an$ !ultural ba!+groun$ i.e. 6life an$ (or+7:

.2

Part One
%" un$erstan$ the literar) (or+ as it refle!ts the histori!al for!es that shape$ it initiall) see ,atthe( Arnol$s !ultural !riti!ism.

Part One

.,

Lect"re / The #arly Twentieth Cent"ry1 Formalisms

*+ Liberal H"manism & e e!r(y t-entiet century -!s ! $eriod of re)!r@!b(e (iter!ry $roducti>ity< ric in ;u!ntity !nd ;u!(ity< in e&%erimentation and inno!ation. & e entire conce$tion of t e n!ture !nd function of (iter!ture< !s -e(( !s of t e re(!tions i$ bet-een (iter!ture !nd re!(ity< c !n%ed !s ! resu(t of t e %ener!( co((!$se of t e o(d re(i%ious< $ i(oso$ ic!(< $syc o(o%ic!( !nd scientific cert!inties. 5& ere -!s ! de)!nd to Iud%e (iter!ture t rou% !$$ro>!( or dis!$$ro>!( of t e -!ys of (i>in% !nd soci!( >!(ues it re$resented. & is $roduced ! secu(!rised >ersion of t e o(d ons(!u% t on unfettered i)!%in!ti>e >ision7 (?(!)ires 30/). "onse;uent(y< )!ny of t e )ost distin%uis ed -riters fe(t c!((ed u$on to e:$(!in !nd Iustify t eir )et ods !nd tec ni;ues. *)on% t e)< t e no>e(ists .enry Q!)es< 1.#. 4orster< 4ord #!do: 4ord< D... L!-rence< ,ir%ini! Woo(f< Qo n #idd(eton #urry< !nd t e $oets W.?. Fe!ts< &.1. .u()e< 1Er! 'ound< &.S. 1(iot< !>e (eft be ind ! tru(y >!(u!b(e critic!( (e%!cy. Henry 4ames (18/361913) res$onded to ! %ener!((y fe(t need to t eoriEe on - !t !d beco)e not on(y t e )ost $o$u(!r< but !(so t e )ost $resti%ious %enre in t e (!te ,ictori!n !nd #odernist *%es< t e no!el. In ! (!r%e nu)ber of !rtic(es !nd $ref!ces e (!)ented t e critic!( ne%(ect in - ic t is %enre !d de>e(o$ed !nd !tte)$ted to co)$ens!te by bui(din% u$ ! t eory of t e t e)!tic se(ecti>ity !nd $syc o(o%ic!( discern)ent t e !ut or )ust e:ercise in constructin% is 5 ho"se of fiction.7 In 5& e *rt of 4iction<7 !s -e(( !s in t e 'ref!ces to The Am#assadors !nd The Portrait of a Lady (inc(uded $ost u)ous(y in The Art of the 0o!el& Critical Prefaces< 193/)< Q!)es !d>oc!tes t e need for 5! sense of unity7 - ic c!n on(y be !c ie>ed by $(!cin% !t t e centre of t e $(ot one $rot!%onist or i)!%e< !nd by renderin% e:$erience fro) )u(ti$(e %ers%ecti!es. & e !ut or i)se(f )ust renounce t e !ut ority $osition !nd be !s one of t e c !r!cters< $!rtici$!te in t eir (ife< !nd !((o- t e) to (i>e !nd bre!t e on t e $!%e< in !n !ttitude of det!c )ent !nd obIecti>ity.
Q1: What $oes he $efine as re lectors? Q2: 'o( $oes 'enr) @ames $es!ribe his !reative pro!ess in the (riting of The Portrait of a Ha$)? (see the Prefa!e to that novel"

In 5& e *rt of 4iction7 (188/) in $!rticu(!r Q!)es insists t !t t ere c!nnot be !ny re$ertoire of set tec ni;ues !nd n!rr!ti>e str!te%ies< !nd no reci$es obt!in. 0!t er< t e no>e( )ust 5con>ey t e fe(t i)$ression of (ife C ! se!)(ess -eb of !ction !nd )oti>e t !t cou(d not be reduced to si)$(e for)u(!s7 (0ic ter /35). .is is ! $ost6 0o)!ntic< e:$ressi>e t eory of !rt t !t e)br!ces f!ir(y tr!dition!( notions of re!(is)< - i(e !t t e s!)e ti)e e:!(tin% t e inte((i%ence of t e !rtist: 5& e dee$est

.-

Part One

;u!(ity of ! -or@ of !rt -i(( !(-!ys be t e ;u!(ity of t e )ind of t e $roducer. In $ro$ortion !s t !t inte((i%ence is fine -i(( t e no>e(N$!rt!@e of t e subst!nce of be!uty !nd trut .7 Q!)es=s contribution -!s to e: ibit !nd e:$(!in t e -or@s o$ of t e no>e(ist=s )ind< t us furt erin% t e $reoccu$!tion -it for) !nd tec ni;ue. Ford -ado& Ford (187361939) is one of t e )ost ne%(ected )!Ior -riters !nd critics of t e !%e. .is t eory of t e no>e( -!s in )!ny -!ys si)i(!r to Q!)es=s< in t !t 4ord< too< $(e!ds for se(ecti>eness in t e c oice of i)$ressions to be rendered !nd det!c )ent !nd def!ce)ent on t e $!rt of t e !ut or. Direct di!(o%ue is to be !>oided in f!>our of 5t e indirect< interru$ted )et od of !nd(in% inter>ie-s.7 .!rry ?(!)ires e:$(!ins:
4ord=s !i) -!s to sub)er%e t e re!der in ! subt(y )!nuf!ctured >erisi)i(itude so contri>ed t !t t e te:t c!rried t e story for-!rd -it incre!sin% s$eed !nd intensity. & is de>ice e c!((ed t e progression d4effet. .ints !nd ite)s of f!ct -ere to be off6 !nded(y s(i$$ed in so t !t cruci!( infor)!tion c!)e !s c!su!((y to t e re!der !s it )i% t in re!( (ife. (31563)

/irginia ,oolf (1882619/1)< !(on%side 1Er! 'ound< -!s not on(y ! %re!t cre!ti>e -riter !nd insi% tfu( critic< but !(so !n i)$ort!nt $ro)oter of (iter!ry t!(ents. .er ess!y 5#odern 4iction7 (1919) !s beco)e one of t e )i(estones of )odernist t eory. In it< not on(y does s e $r!ise conte)$or!ry inno>!tors in t e !rt of t e no>e( (suc !s Dorot y 0ic !rdson !nd Q!)es Qoyce)< but s e !(so e:$(!ins t e ne- underst!ndin% of ob2ecti!ity !nd re!(is) t !t -!s to infuse t e modernist no>e(. & e n!rr!ti>e )et od )ost !$$ro$ri!te for renderin% e:$erience !s it re!((y is< in its co)$(e: fragmentariness !nd !ssoci!ti>e !rbitr!riness< is - !t c!)e to be c!((ed t e stream-of-conscio"sness techni)"e. & is )et od on(y c!n o$e to c!$ture t e essence C c!(( it (ife or s$irit C of e:istence< !s it !tte)$ts to re%ister t e )yri!d< )u(tif!rious i)$ressions t !t s o-er t e 5ordin!ry )ind on !n ordin!ry d!y.7 #oreo>er< Woo(f=s 5* 0oo) of +ne=s +-n7 !nd 5& ree Huine!s<7 in t eir s$irited $(e! for fin!nci!( !nd soci!( !utono)y for -o)en -riters< !re $ioneer te:ts in fe)inist criticis). #+-+ Forster (187961970) !nd '+H+ Lawrence (188561930)< t-o of t e )ost distin%uis ed no>e(ists of t e ti)e !nd )e)bers of ,ir%ini! Woo(f=s ?(oo)sbury Hrou$< !(so e:$ressed t eir -ide(y differin% o$inions on (iter!ture in e:tensi>e ess!ys. W i(e 4orster -!s %ener!((y b(!nd !nd c !tty in is e>!(u!tion of t e 1n%(is no>e(istic tr!dition< L!-rence 5b(!sted !-!y -it ectorin% r etoric in !%%ressi>e defence of t e no>e( !s ! cruci!( inf(uence on t e -!y -e (i>e7 (?(!)ires 320). W i(e t e for)er is %ener!((y (!ud!ti>e< t e (!tter is i% (y critic!( of - !t e re%!rded !s t e co)$(!cency !nd con>ention!(ity of !(( 1n%(is -riters< "onr!d !nd Qoyce inc(uded.
Remember? ;.,. /orster (rote Aspe!ts of the Iovel (1D#J" in (hi!h he $istinguishes bet(een Kflat an$ Kroun$e$ !hara!ters in <harles .i!+enss novels.

Part One

.+

In t e re!() of $oetry< *rt ur Sy)ons !nd W.?. Fe!ts contributed to $ro)otin% t e >oc!tion of !rt !s ! re$(!ce)ent for t e e>er6-!nin% >oc!tion of re(i%ion< ! doctrine t !t -!s to be t!@en u$ not on(y by Ste$ !n Ded!(us< Qoyce=s 5!rtist !s ! youn% )!n<7 but !(so< )ore serious(y !nd ent usi!stic!((y< by critic T+#+ H"lme (188361917). Ji((ed on t e Western 4ront< is critic!( -or@ n!tur!((y ref(ects on(y on t e $re6W!r $eriod< but it !s t e $ro$ etic ;u!(ity of t e insi% tfu( cu(tur!( !n!(yst. In ! $iece entit(ed 5 (omanticism !nd Classicism<7 $ub(is ed $ost u)ous(y in is co((ected ess!ys -peculations (192/)< is t esis is t !t< 5!fter ! undred ye!rs of ro)!nticis)< -e !re in for ! c(!ssic!( re>i>!(.7 0o)!nticis) sees )!n !s 5!n infinite reser>oir of $ossibi(ities<7 - i(e $ro%ress de$ends on !((o-in% )!n to re!rr!n%e society by 5destruction of o$$ressi>e order.7 "(!ssicis)< on t e ot er !nd< i)$oses order !nd re%!rds )!n !s 5!n e:tr!ordin!ri(y fi:ed !nd (i)ited !ni)!(.7 & e re(i%ious !ttitude is c(!ssic!(< - ere!s ro)!nticis) turns to t e e!>en on e!rt . & e (!n%u!%e of c(!ssic!( $oetry is $recise< dry !nd !rd< i.e.< concrete !nd disci$(ined. #6ra Po"nd (188561972)< (i@e .u()e< sou% t ! ne- $recision !nd e:$(icitness in renderin% t e n!ture of e)otion. .e e!r(y on defined %oetry !s 5! sort of ins$ired )!t e)!tics< - ic %i>es us e;u!tion< not for !bstr!ct fi%ures< tri!n%(es< s$ eres< !nd t e (i@e< but e;u!tions for t e u)!n e)otions7 ( The -pirit of ,omance< 1910). In t e *magist )!nifesto< e cited t e b!sic $rinci$(es of t !t )o>e)ent t us:
Direct tre!t)ent of t e Ot in%= - et er subIecti>e or obIecti>e. &o use !bso(ute(y no -ord t !t does not contribute to t e $resent!tion. *s re%!rdin% r yt ): to co)$ose in t e se;uence of t e )usic!( $ r!se< not in se;uence of ! )etrono)e.

.e defined !n image !s $resentin% 5!n inte((ectu!( !nd e)otion!( co)$(e: in !n inst!nt of ti)e7 !nd its inst!nt!neous $resent!tion %i>es ! 5sense of sudden (iber!tion.7 'ound=s c!)$!i%n -!s directed !%!inst $ro(i:ity< >erbosity< !nd f(!cidity< !nd !%!inst s o>e((in% in -ords to fi(( u$ ! )etric!( $!ttern. .e $(e!ded for ! )!scu(ine< )uscu(!r $oetry< disci$(ined !nd 5s!ne.7 *s for t e critic=s function< !(( e c!n do is to focus t e re!der=s %!Ee< -it out !tte)$tin% to $rescribe or $ro ibit: e c!n on(y $ro>ide 5fi:ed $oints of de$!rture.7 (2ote t e conf(ict bet-een suc %enerous reco))end!tions !nd 'ound=s o-n c!te%oric!( $rescri$tions !nd $roscri$tions.) 'ound=s )ost i)$ort!nt ro(e< o-e>er< -!s !s $ro)oter of t e %re!test t!(ents of t e !%e (Fe!ts< 1(iot< ..D.< 0obert 4rost !nd Qoyce< !)on% t e)< !nd in t is e -!s !(so Ioined< t ou% )uc (ess obtrusi>e(y< by 1(iot)< !nd initi!tor of ! -ide >!riety of !>!nt6%!rde trends !nd t eir )edi!tic or%!ns. & ere is ! %ener!( !%ree)ent t !t T+S+ #liot (188861935) is one of t e )ost )!%isteri!((y inf(uenti!( >oices in 1n%(is (iter!ry criticis). .is critic!( $ronounce)ents sti)u(!ted ! refres in% re!$$r!is!( of >!rious )!Ior (iter!ry re$ut!tions< !nd refined t e sco$e !nd function of criticis) itse(f. ?(!)ires c(!rifies:
& is is $!rt(y bec!use 1(iot=s critic!( out$ut -!s so di>erse< $!rt(y bec!use is !ttitude

20

Part One
c !n%ed !s is t in@in% de>e(o$ed< !nd $!rt(y bec!use e ne>er !c ie>ed t e tot!((y disinterested critic!( out(oo@ of t e -riter - o focuses in det!c )ent u$on t e -or@ of ot ers. #uc of 1(iot=s critic!( out$ut re)!ins !n !dIunct to !nd ! co))ent!ry u$on is o-n $ur$ose !nd $ro%r!))e !s ! $oet. (323)

.e conse;uent(y )!@es t e $ro>iso t !t is t eories c!nnot be !$$(ied to !(( $oetry indiscri)in!te(y. .is inconsistencies !nd -!riness of definiti>e $ronounce)ents< o-e>er< !>e not $re>ented 5&r!dition !nd t e Indi>idu!( &!(ent7 (1917) fro) beco)in% one of t e )!nifestoes of #odernis)< nor )!ny of is ter)s !nd !ssess)ents fro) stic@in%.
Remember? 6tradition7 is the onl) me$ium in (hi!h the poet !an !reate an$ his (orth !an be properl) assesse$: there is an immovable 6i$eal or$er7 in tra$ition that the artist relates to as he !hallenges !urrent fashions an$ !onventions (in 6Tra$ition an$ the In$ivi$ual Talent7": $epersonalisation3 6im"ersonalit#7 vs. selfEe0pression8 the tra$ition (rites itself using the poet as a !atal)st for !onverting emotion an$ thought into poetr)8 6Poetr) is not a turning loose of emotion but an es!ape from emotion: it is not an e0pression of personalit) but an es!ape from personalit). =ut of !ourse onl) those (ho have personalit) an$ emotions +no( (hat it means to (ant to es!ape from these things7 (in 6Tra$ition an$ the In$ivi$ual Talent7": the metaph)si!al 6un$isso!iate$ sensibilit)7 of ;liLabethan poetr) in (hi!h min$ an$ heart the senses an$ the intelle!t (or+e$ in unison follo(e$ b) a 6 dissociation o sensibilit#7 from (hi!h (e ma) not have re!overe$ )et (in 6The ,etaph)si!al Poets 7 1D#1": the 6m#thical method7 of his o(n Waste Han$ an$ of @o)!es Ml)sses 6a (a) of or$ering of giving a shape an$ a signifi!an!e to the immense panorama of futilit) an$ anar!h) (hi!h is !ontemporar) histor)>7 (in 6Ml)sses Ar$er an$ ,)th 7 1D##": the 6objecti$e correlati$e7 so important to Ie( <riti!ism $efine$ as 6a set of ob9e!ts a situation a !hain of events (hi!h shall be the formula of that parti!ular emotion: su!h that (hen the e0ternal fa!ts (hi!h must terminate in sensor) e0perien!e are given the emotion is imme$iatel) evo+e$7 (in 6'amlet an$ 'is Problems 7 1D1D"

.is t eory is )e!nt to s ift t e focus fro) $oet to $oetry !nd $roIect fro) t e indi>idu!( $oe) to t e body of $oetry to - ic it be(on%s. #oreo>er< 1(iot recu$er!tes cre!ti>e $r!ctices !nd !$$ro!c es to t e n!ture of $oetry t !t en!b(e ! )ore co)$re ensi>e renderin% of conte)$or!ry re!(ities. .e e)$ !sises es$eci!((y t e disru$ti>e $ro$ensity of t e $oet=s (!n%u!%e. In so doin%< 1(iot fores !do-ed !nd t en $!rti!((y endorsed t e $rinci$(es of t e first $ro%r!))!tic critic!( sc oo(< t !t of t e uni>ersity dons - o $ro)oted not on(y close reading< but !(so interdisci%linary !$$ro!c es to (iter!ture. & eir t ic@ r!n@s inc(ude $resti%ious n!)es suc !s Heor%e S!intsbury< Sir .erbert Hrierson (- o edited %etaphysical Lyrics and Poems of the -e!enteenth Century in 1921)< t e $oet *.1.

Part One

21

.ous)!n< !s -e(( !s so)e of t e )ost re$uted S !@es$e!re!n critics< suc !s *.". ?r!d(ey< 1.J. " !)bers< .!r(ey Hr!n>i((e6?!r@er< !nd )!ny ot ers. * (!ter (iber!( u)!nist< - ose >oice -!s -ide(y e!rd in ?rit!in -e(( into t e 1930s -!s t e -riter C+S+ Lewis (189861933) ($rob!b(y @no-n to you fro) t e cine)!to%r!$ ic bio%r!$ y -hado1lands< - ere e is $ortr!yed by *nt ony .o$@ins< or !s t e !ut or of t e Chronicles of 0arn$a). .e -!s ! " risti!n don !t +:ford< 5dee$(y conscious of bein% !t (o%%er e!ds -it t e s$irit of is !%e. & is -!s ! )!tter bot of re(i%ious f!it !nd of cu(tur!( orient!tion7 (?(!)ires 350). In !ddition to re>i>in% t e %enre of historical criticism by is -or@ on #edie>!( !nd 0en!iss!nce (iter!ture< e !(so bec!)e in>o(>ed in ! nu)ber of t e t eoretic!( !nd critic!( contro>ersies of is ti)e. W !t e $(e!ded for< in bot (ectures !nd boo@s< -!s ! criticis) - ic e:$(ic!ted 5t e e:;uisite(y det!i(ed co)$u(sions7 !nd t e 5)!%ic7 - ic -ords e:ercise o>er t e rece$ti>e )ind of t e re!der. Le-is=s creed -!s si)i(!r to #!t e- *rno(d=s st!te)ent !ccordin% to - ic 5& e %re!t !rt of criticis) is to %et onese(f out of t e -!y !nd to (et u)!nity decide.7
Remember! Hiberal 'umanism moves a(a) from tra$itional 1D thE!entur) literar) histor) an$ starts isolating the literar) (or+ from its histori!al so!ioEe!onomi! environment. That is (h) some historians an$ !riti!s (among (hom Iorthrop /r)e Robert <on .avis an$ Ronal$ 5!hleifer Peter =arr)" in!lu$e Pra!ti!al an$ Ie( <riti!ism un$er the generous aegis of 'umanism.

**+ Practical Criticism Cambridge -!s t e se!t of )uc de(iber!te t eorisin% on t e n!ture !nd $ro>en!nce of $oetry !nd es$eci!((y on t e ro(e of t e critic in !$$r!isin% it. *+A+ (ichards (189361979)< t e e!r(iest $ro$onent of close reading8 %ractical criticism< e:$(ores t e re(!tion bet-een (iter!ture !nd (ife by brin%in% t e nescience of $syc o(o%y to be!r u$on t e criteri! !nd tec ni;ue for Iud%in% (iter!ture. .e ridicu(es t e i)$osition of )et!$ ysic!( c!te%ories suc !s be!uty or )or!(ity on !est etic criticis)< !nd $(e!ds inste!d for !do$tin% t e re(i!bi(ity !nd ri%or of e:$eri)ent!( science. & is is !c ie>ed t rou% c(ose !ttention to t e te:t on t e $!%e. *ccordin% to 0ic !rds< t e )ost i)$ort!nt re(!tions i$ is t !t bet-een te:t !nd re!der< !nd e sets out to in>esti%!te t e n!ture !nd @inds of )e!nin% t !t !rise fro) t !t encounter. In order to do so< e or%!nises !n e:$eri)ent< in - ic re!ders !re %i>en fr!%)ents of te:t t!@en out of !ny conte:t !nd re;uired to co))ent on t e). W !t e)er%es is not on(y ! b(!t!nt de)onstr!tion of $oor t!ste< but !(so of t e (!c@ of !ny syste)!tic !$$ro!c to $oetry. .e t erefore distin%uis es four (e>e(s or 5@inds7 of )e!nin%: sense< fee(in%< tone !nd intention< !nd in>esti%!tes t e >!rious sources of difficu(ty $osed by criticis). ?(!)ires co))ents:
& e e:$eri)ent 0ic !rds )!de !nd t e )!teri!( it $roduced $ro>ed )ore sti)u(!tin% t !n t e %ener!( critic!( t eory into - ic e subsu)ed it. 2e>ert e(ess so)e of is

22

Part One
ter)ino(o%y ((i@e t e distinction bet-een t e Oscientific= !nd t e O emoti!e= use of (!n%u!%e) $ro>ed usefu( in s !r$enin% res$onsi>eness to (iter!ry ;u!(ity !nd definin% it )ore re(i!b(y. (333)

0ic !rds= )!Ior contribution !s been $ed!%o%ic< in t !t is c(ose re!din% !s $ro>ided !(( subse;uent %ener!tions -it t e too(s !nd )et odo(o%y for !$$ro!c in% (iter!ture. Fet is e:ercises !>e !(so inf(uenced so)e of t e )!Ior critics of t e 20t century. 0ic !rds= student !t "!)brid%e< ,illiam #m%son (19036 8/) too@ is cue fro) is )!ster !nd !tte)$ted to )!@e ! fu((6sc!(e in>esti%!tion into )u(ti$(icity of )e!nin% in -e!en Types of Am#iguity (1930). ?y ambig"ity e !ctu!((y )e!nt 5!ny >erb!( nu!nce< o-e>er s(i% t< - ic %i>es roo) for !(tern!ti>e re!ctions to t e s!)e $iece of (!n%u!%e.7 .is se>en ty$es co>er t e fu(( r!n%e fro) ! det!i( t !t is effecti>e in se>er!( -!ys !t once to o$en contr!dictions !nd fro) o)o$ ones to $!r!do:. In is descri$tion< i)!%in!tion !s -e(( !s re!son !nd (o%ic !re brou% t to be!r on t e $r!ctic!( i((ustr!tions of connot!ti>e subt(eties !nd )u(ti$(icities of -ords. & is is - !t %i>es is study its inte((ectu!( ;u!(ity !nd !s )!de it !not er (!nd)!r@ in (iter!ry criticis). 'r!ctic!( critics focused s$ecific!((y on $oetry< - ic su$$(ied not on(y t e (in%uistic !nd sty(istic co)$(ic!tions for t e) to -or@ on< but !(so t e bre>ity necess!ry for t eir i% (y !rticu(!te !nd $it y $ronounce)ents on t e n!ture of (iter!ry (!n%u!%e. "(ose !ttention to $rose -!s insti%!ted by !not er i% (y inf(uenti!( critic fro) "!)brid%e< F+(+ Lea!is (189561987). .is boo@s 0e1 Bearings in *nglish Poetry (1932)< ,e!aluation (1933)< !nd The 2reat Tradition (19/8) !>e s !$ed not on(y critic!( t!ste< but !(so !c!de)ic curricula !nd c!nons. In t e first t-o of t ese< Le!>is $r!ises t e !rt of 5 concrete realisation7 C 5t e $oetic ener%y - ic en!b(es -ords not to $resent so)et in% to t e re!der< but to !ct u$on i)7 (?(!)ires 3/0). In is u%e(y inf(uenti!( 2reat Tradition< e fo((o-s .enry Q!)es in reco%nisin% t !t 5t e no>e( Iustified t e @ind of critic!( !ttention to det!i( - ic for)er(y !d been %i>en on(y to $oetry !nd dr!)!.7 ?(!)ires dr!-s our !ttention t !t 5We !re !$t to t!@e t is for %r!nted tod!y< but Le!>is -!s ! $ioneer in !r%uin% t !t 1n%(is $oetic ener%y in t e nineteent century -ent into $rose fiction7 (3/1). *ddition!((y< e contributed to est!b(is in% ! )odern c!non in t e study of 1n%(is (iter!ture< re>o(>in% !round Her!rd #!n(ey .o$@ins< W.?. Fe!ts< &.S. 1(iot !nd 1Er! 'ound in $oetry !nd !round Q!ne *usten< Heor%e 1(iot< .enry Q!)es !nd Qose$ "onr!d (to - o) e (!ter !dded Dic@ens) in $rose. *(t ou% c!nons !>e )ore recent(y co)e under !tt!c@< Le!>is est!b(is ed for)!( inno>!ti>eness !nd soci!( en%!%e)ent !s t e st!nd!rds of ;u!(ity in nor)!ti>e criticis) or 5!al"ation.7 ?(!)ires %oes on: 5*s Le!>is s!- it< t e study of (iter!ture cou(d $erfor) ! @ey function in rescuin% t e ;u!(ity of (ife in !n !%e of crisis - en it -!s t re!tened by ! ci>i(is!tion - ose tec no(o%y !nd )edi! to%et er deb!se st!nd!rds !nd e)$ty d!i(y (ife of u)!n content7 (3/1). & is (!st $ro$osition is centr!( to - !t !s beco)e @no-n !s t e Lea!isite School of (iter!ry criticis)< co!%u(!tin% !round t e $eriodic!( -crutiny (founded !nd edited by Le!>is< 193261953)< ! sc oo( t !t is sti(( $resent in t e ?ritis

Part One

2"

!c!de)i!. Le!>is be(ie>ed t !t t e %re!test ;u!(ity of ! (iter!ry -or@ is its c!$!city to !$$e!( to - !t is dee$est in us. 5Le!>is is !t $!ins to )!@e c(e!r t !t it is suc $rofundity of en%!%e)ent - ic )!@es ! no>e(ist ! O$oet= C !nd not >erb!( decor!tion7 (3/2). S !@es$e!re studies -ere re>i>ed in t e -!@e of *.". ?r!d(ey=s inno>!ti>e !$$ro!c to S !@es$e!re=s (!n%u!%e !nd to is et os !s t e etern!( conte)$or!ry of is re!ders in -ha espearean Tragedy (190/). +ne of t e )ost inf(uenti!( critics !s been 9+ ,ilson Knight (189761985)< - ose c(!ssific!tions of i)!%ery !nd e:$(or!tion of its )et!$ ysic!( connot!tions !>e s !$ed !n i)$ort!nt se%)ent of t-entiet 6century criticis). ?(!)ires notes:
.is first critic!( -or@s on S !@es$e!re< The Wheel of .ire (1930) !nd The 'mperial Theme (1931)< brou% t !cute $oetic sensiti>ity to be!r on i)!%es !nd i)!%e6c(usters< dr!-in% out t e sy)bo(ic content< e:!)inin% t e t e)!tic re(!tions i$s< !nd -e!>in% $!tterns of t ou% tN- ic !t (e!st !>e t e >irtue of bein% -e((6%rounded in !(ert re!din% of t e te:ts. & e boo@s soon est!b(is ed t e)se(>es< !nd t ey e:ercised ! cruci!( inf(uence in redirectin% !ttention !-!y fro) t e study of c !r!cters !s t ou% t ey -ere !ctu!( bein%s to !-!reness of t e function t e $oetry $erfor)s in constitutin% ! $!tterned - o(e< ric in sy)bo(ic re>erber!tions. (3//)

?(!)ires %oes on: 5Wi(son Jni% t=s -or@ er!(ded !n outburst of interest in sy)bo(is) - ic soon bec!)e f!)i(i!r not on(y to students of S !@es$e!re !nd ot er $oetic dr!)!tists< but !(so to re!ders of no>e(s by Dic@ens< .!rdy< !nd ot er no>e(ists - ose )inds -or@ed $oetic!((y7 (3/563). ***+ The American 0ew Criticism & e )o>e)ent -!s st!rted by critics educ!ted !t "!)brid%e (to ! (!r%e e:tent in t e 0o)!ntic critic!( tr!dition)< - o t en )i(it!ted for t e introduction of (iter!ry criticis) !s ! disci$(ine in *)eric!n uni>ersities. & e criticis) of I.*. 0ic !rds< Wi((i!) 1)$son< &.S. 1(iot !d ! %re!t contribution to s !$in% t e 2e"ritic!( )o>e)ent. Its e!r(iest $ro)oters -ere initi!((y !(so in>o(>ed in soci!( refor) (!s )e)bers of suc %rou$s !s t e F"giti!es in t e 1920s !nd t en t e Agrarians in t e 1930s in t e *)eric!n Sout )< t ou% -it f!r (ess success< in !n un(i@e(y co)bin!tion of for)!(ist !nd " risti!n interests< !nd conser>!ti>e $o(itics. +n t e ot er !nd< t ese or%!nis!tions f!ci(it!ted t eir !ccess to t e $ress< !nd t ey founded $resti%ious sc o(!r(y Iourn!(s suc !s t e (enyon ,e!ie1 !nd t e )irginia ;uarterly ,e!ie1< - ic c!rried )uc of t eir criticis). & e !n!(ytic!( )et od $ro$osed by t is sc oo(< c!((ed !%!in close reading< is t e *)eric!n counter$!rt of t e ?ritis $r!ctic!( criticis). *s o$$osed to t e "!)brid%e >!ri!nt< o-e>er< 2e- "riticis) reIects t e re!der6oriented for)u(!tion of 0ic !rds !nd 1)$son !nd resists t eorisin% in f!>our of direct in>o(>e)ent -it t e te:t. 4und!)ent!((y< it focuses on t e te&t on the %age !t t e e:$ense of !ny consider!tion of its !ut or or of t e istoric!( or (iter!ry conte:t in - ic it -!s $roduced. It -!s ! crude s$ecies of Formalism< in t e r!t er dero%!ti>e sense of disre%!rdin% )!tters of content !nd res$onse in f!>our of str"ct"re (or so)eti)es (o%ic< or !r%u)ent) !nd te&t"re (or so)eti)es density< or $!rticu(!rity) (Qo n

2/

Part One

"ro-e 0!nso)=s ter)s) !nd t e -!y in - ic t ey b!(!nce !nd en!b(e one !not er. *s for t e 1uro$e!n 4or)!(ists< !(t ou% for) !nd content !re inse$!r!b(e !nd en%!%ed in ! di!(ectic!( re(!tions i$< form is t e be!rer of )e!nin%< !nd is t erefore $ri>i(e%ed o>er content. & eir )!in concern is -it t ose fe!tures of $oetic (!n%u!%e - ic )!@e it %oetic< !s contr!distinct fro) $rose< !nd -it - !t t ey c!((ed t e literariness of (iter!ture. & ey $ursue t ese by laying bare the de!ices used by t e !ut or< or by s o-in% o- -riters defamiliarise re!(ity in order to !c ie>e t e effect of (iter!riness. 2e- "riticis) is not< o-e>er< ! f!it fu( *)eric!n co$y of 0ussi!n 4or)!(is). & e )!in difference bet-een t e t-o sc oo(s is t !t t e for)er is not t e decodin% of sty(istic de>ices !nd (in%uistic )ec !nis)s in se!rc of t e )e!nin% #eyond< but t e con>iction t !t (iter!ture cont!ins !n intrinsic uni!ersal meaning. & e 2e"ritics infused t e study of (iter!ture -it ! concern for tr!dition!( " risti!n !nd ide!(istic !est etic >!(ues< but !sserted t e !bso(ute !utono)y of t e !est etic. & e ro(e of socio6bio%r!$ ic!( conte:t in t e co)in% into bein% of t e te:t is discounted< !nd so is mimesis< referentiality bein% re%!rded !s irre(e>!nt to (iter!ry inter$ret!tion. Inste!d< t e 2e- "ritics focus on s$ecific (iter!ry -or@s !s iconic !nd or%!nic!((y %ro-in% out of n!tur!( $rocesses in t e $ eno)en!( -or(d< - ere!s t e 4or)!(ists construe !nd t eorise (iter!ry -or@s !s $!rt of (iter!ry istory< e:!)inin% t e e>o(ution of (iter!ry for)s< t eir !$$urten!nce to s$ecific %enres< -it ! >ie- to !ccount for t e $ro%ress in (iter!ry re$resent!tion. 9n(i@e t e 2e- "ritics< t e 4or)!(ists %r!nt t e -or@ ! cert!in de%ree of )i)etic >!(ue. *not er cruci!( distinction bet-een t e 4or)!(ists !nd 2e- "ritics is t !t t e (!tter e>ince no interest in t e (!test de>e(o$)ents in (in%uistics !nd se)ioticsG inste!d< t eir !$$ro!c to $oetic (!n%u!%e is infor)ed by rhetoric. "onse;uent(y< t eir stress on t e te&t as te&t r!ises conce$ts suc !s %arado&. irony. ambig"ity to t e st!tus of ! critic!( O o(y trinity= !nd consecr!tes ! s$eci!(ised ter)ino(o%y t !t inc(udes: "nity. coherence. %attern. analogy. ob2ecti!e correlati!e. symbol. tension. o!erla%%ing. discre%ancy. contradiction. etc. & e $oet 4ohn Crowe (ansom (18886197/)< in critic!( te:ts suc !s The 0e1 Criticism (19/1) !nd 5"riticis) Inc.7 (1937)< is concerned -it t e f!ct t !t uni>ersity curricula s ou(d !cco))od!te t e te!c in% of criticis)< t us contributin% to t e $rofession!(is!tion of t e critic=s Iob. .e defines criticis) !s 5t e !tte)$t to define !nd enIoy t e !est etic or c !r!cteristic >!(ues of (iter!ture.7 .e discredits suc !$$ro!c es to (iter!ture !s bio%r!$ ic!(< istoric!(< (in%uistic< !nd )or!( studies of t e (iter!ry -or@< or t e )ore did!ctic!( syno$sis !nd $!r!$ r!se< !nd !((o-s on(y for 5studies in t e tec ni;ue of !rt.7 It is t is 5tec ni;ue7 t !t !((o-s t e $oet to $reser>e t e $oetic essence of is -or@. .e %r!s$s it -it in ! connot!tion!( 5tissue7 - ic -i(( @ee$ it secure< !nd - ic it is t e Iob of t e critic to distin%uis fro) t e 5$rose core7 (see ?(!)ires 35365). .e )ust do so in t e n!)e of t e uniniti!ted re!der< - o -i(( t!@e is cue in decodin% t e (iter!ry te:t fro) t e $(et or! of inter$ret!tions )!de !>!i(!b(e in Iourn!(s. Cleanth $roo5s (190369/) be(ie>ed t !t 5Liter!ry criticis) is ! descri$tion !nd e>!(u!tion of its obIect.7 .!rry ?(!)ires e(!bor!tes:

Part One

2.

It concerns itse(f -it t e -or@ itse(f. In re$(y to t ose - o !r%ue t !t t is iso(!tion of t e -or@ cuts it (oose fro) its !ut or !nd is (ife< !nd fro) its re!ders !nd t eir res$onse< ?roo@s insists t !t - !t be(on%s to bio%r!$ y !nd $syc o(o%y )!y be interestin% but is not to be confused O-it !n !ccount of t e -or@.= Suc )!tters !s t e intensity of t e !ut or=s fee(in%s !s e -rote or of t e re!der=s res$onses - en e re!ds !re to be discounted. (355)

*(t ou% e does not $ur$ort to discredit istoric!(< bio%r!$ ic!( !nd ot er studies t !t )!y su$$ort criticis)< ?roo@s )!int!ins ! >ie- of t e critic !s t e consu))!te decoder of $!r!do:es !nd ironies. In 5& e .eresy of '!r!$ r!se7 (19/7)< e insists t !t t e $oe) c!nnot be e;u!ted -it its 5$!r!$ r!s!b(e content7: its for) is its content C i.e.< t e $oe) is a#out t e -!y in - ic t e o$$ositions !nd tensions in erent in its te:ture !re reso(>ed into ! !r)onious b!(!nce. In The WellWrought 6rn (19/7) e defines t e 5essenti!( structure7 of t e $oe) !s 5! $!ttern of reso(>ed stresses.7 Li@e t e structure of ! b!((et or )usic!( co)$osition< it is ! 5$!ttern of reso(utions !nd b!(!nces !nd !r)onis!tions de>e(o$ed t rou% ! te)$or!( sc e)e.7 0ic ter e:$(!ins: 5& e $rinci$!( )edi!tor of t is reso(ution -!s $oetic (!n%u!%e< s$ecific!((y t e c!$!city of (!n%u!%e to c!rry )u(ti$(e )e!nin%s t !t cou(d disc(ose idden conf(icts !nd tensions !t t e outset of t e $oe) !nd con>er%e into ! !r)onious b!(!nce !t t e end7 (707).
Remember? William ;mpson $efines 6ambiguit)7 as pre!isel) this pol)semi! !apa!it) of language. Ransoms eFuivalents for 6essential stru!ture7 an$ 6paraphrasable !ontent7 are 6te0ture7 an$ 6stru!ture 7 respe!tivel).

,+K+ ,imsatt (1907675) !nd -onroe C+ $eardsley (1915685) !re best @no-n for t eir Ioint >enture< The )er#al 'con& -tudies in the %eaning of Poetry (195/)< in - ic t ey e:$ound t eir t eory of 5& e Intention!( 4!((!cy7 !nd 5& e *ffecti>e 4!((!cy.7 In t ese t-o ess!ys t ey insist t !t no $oe) c!n be Iud%ed by reference eit er to t e $oet=s intention or to re!der=s !ffecti>e res$onse to t e -or@. ?(!)ires notes:
Wi)s!tt !nd ?e!rds(ey !re !t $!ins to decry %(ib Iud%)ents of $oetry in ter)s of Osincerity<= Os$ont!neity<= O!ut enticity<= O%enuineness= !nd ot er suc conce$ts e>!si>e of obIecti>ity !nd $recision. & eir !tt!c@ on t e !tte)$t to Iud%e $oetry !s e:$ression of fee(in% is )!tc ed in (o%ic!( force by t eir !tt!c@ on t e !tte)$t to Iud%e it by its e)oti>e effect on t e re!der. & e $oe) )ust be confused neit er -it its c!use nor -it its resu(ts. (353)

& e for)er f!((!cy es$eci!((y< - ic reson!tes -it &.S. 1(iot=s t eory of t e i)$erson!(ity of $oetry< !s )!de !n inde(ib(e i)$ression on criticis)< resurf!cin% in deconstructi>e $ro$ositions re%!rdin% t e de!t of t e !ut or.
Remember?

22

Part One

An impressive number of !riti!s proffer !autionar) a$vi!e8 Poe $enoun!e$ the N$i$a!ti! heres)N an$ <.5. He(is the Npersonal heres)N: the Ie( <riti!s of the 1D&Gs an$ 1D*Gs spo+e of the Naffe!tiveN an$ NintentionalN falla!ies but also the Kfalla!) of imitative form the Kfalla!) of neo!lassi! spe!ies an$ the Kbiographi!al heres) (Wimsatt an$ =ear$sle)": the Kfalla!) of imitative form (Ovor Winters": an$ the Nheres) of paraphraseN (<leanth =roo+s". Hater on others (ere a$$e$8 the Nheres) of omnipossibilismN (;... 'irs!h" the Nfalla!) of unme$iate$ e0pressionN an$ the Nfalla!) of finite interpretationN (Paul $e ,an". Q8 .o )ou remember (hat the 6patheti! falla!)7 is? 0ii

& e @ey to t e -or@ of !(( t ese four 2e- "ritics !nd )!ny ot ers is t eir insistence on t e !utono)y of t e (iter!ry -or@ fro) e:tr!6(iter!ry f!ctors< t e !ut or inc(uded. * r!t er sin%u(!r re$resent!ti>e of t is )o>e)ent is t e $oet :!or ,inters (1900638). .e defines ! $oe) !s 5! st!te)ent in -ords -it ! s$eci!( concern to e:$ress fee(in%s. Words< o-e>er< !>e !n inesc!$!b(e r!tion!( content. & ere )ust be ! $recise !nd %enuine re(!tions i$ bet-een t e fee(in% e:$ressed !nd t e underst!ndin% of t e e:$erience - ic )oti>!tes it7 (?(!)ires 353). & e $oet t erefore !s ! centr!( ro(e in contro((in% is )ediu) !nd %r!ntin% it (ucidity !nd $recision. +t er re$resent!ti>es: *((en &!te< 0.'. ?(!c@)ur< #!r@ Sc orer< #urr!y Jrie%er< 0ene We((e@ (!(so 0obert 'enn W!rren< but is )!in contribution is to (iter!ture itse(f).
Remember! Although the theories of both Pra!ti!al an$ Ie( <riti!s fo!us spe!ifi!all) on poetr) their !riti!al e0pertise e0ten$s in the !ase of the =ritish to 5ha+espeares $rama an$ in the !ase of the Ameri!ans espe!iall) to the (or+ of 5outhern novelists. Ather !rossEfertilisations (ere also fruitful as in the !ase of ,ar+ 5!horer (ho (rote on =ritish ?i!torian novels. The !riti!s $ealt (ith belo( un$er the !omprehensive hea$ing 6Ather /ormalisms 7 $(elle$ mostl) on prose fi!tion.

*/+ Other Formalisms Archety%al; Anthro%ological; -yth Criticism : ! t orou% consider!tion of t e i)$!ct of >!rious )yt o(o%ies< )yt s< su$erstitions !nd )ent!(ities on (iter!ture !nd i)$(icit(y on t e $syc e of t e -riters< resu(tin% in (iter!ry %enres !nd reco%nis!b(e $(ot< c !r!cter< !nd sy)bo( $!tterns. & e b!sic !ssu)$tion of !nt ro$o(o%ic!( criticis) is t !t t e %ro-t of )e!nin% in ! (iter!ry -or@ is inde$endent of t e $oet=s conscious intention. It -!s inf(uenced by t e rese!rc conducted by Sir Q!)es 4r!Eer !nd #!ud ?od@in. & e "!n!di!n 0orthro% Frye (1912691) is t e )ost i)$ort!nt re$resent!ti>e of t is trend. *s e!r(y !s 1951< in 5& e *rc ety$es of Liter!ture<7 !nd (!ter in is ce(ebr!ted Anatomy of Criticism (1957) !nd .a#les of 'dentity (1933)< e insists

Part One

2,

t !t criticis) s ou(d be ! syste)!tic< scientific study contributin% to ! )ore %ener!( structure of @no-(ed%e. In t is< e co)es c(ose to structur!(is)< - ic < (i@e 2e"riticis) !nd n!rr!to(o%y< !(so c(!i)s i). .is )!in -or@in% $re)ise -!s t !t t e $oe) )ust be cut off fro) t e $oet< - o is not !-!re of !(( its i)$(ic!tions< !nd !n!(ysed -it !n eye to detectin% )uc (!r%er $!tterns of )e!nin%. & e @ey to underst!ndin% (ies in reco%nition of !rc ety$es - ic re$resent ! 5unifyin% c!te%ory7 of criticis): 5t e $rofound )!ster$iece see)s to dr!- us to ! $oint !t - ic -e c!n see !n enor)ous nu)ber of con>er%in% $!tterns of si%nific!nce.7 .e !$$ro!c es t e no>e( fro) ! >!riety of $ers$ecti>es C 5t eories<7 e c!((s t e): & eory of #odes< of Sy)bo(s< of #yt s< !nd of Henres< in t e four ess!ys t !t )!@e u$ is Anatomy of Criticism< res$ecti>e(y. & ree of t e e(e)ents of t e *ristote(i!n di!%r!) s !$e 4rye=s t eories: mythos is t e >erb!( i)it!tion of !ction< or structure of i)!%ery in )o>e)ent (*ristot(e=s $(ot)G ethos refers to u)!n n!ture< u)!n situ!tion (c !r!cteris!tion)G dianoia is t e >erb!( i)it!tion of t ou% t< or st!tic structures of i)!%ery (*ristot(e=s t ou% t). 4rye=s underst!ndin% of t e no>e( is det!i(ed in t e 5& eory of #yt os7 (t e second $!rt of t e t ird ess!y)< in - ic t e )yt os of S$rin% is !ssi%ned to "o)edy< t !t of Su))er to 0o)!nce< *utu)n to &r!%edy< !nd Winter to Irony !nd S!tire (es$eci!((y ironic re!(is)). In t is conte:t< 0o)!nce is defined !s !n 5!n!(o%y of innocence<7 c(oser to .e!>en !nd desi%n!ted !s *)eric!=s (iter!ry )ode< - ere!s 0e!(is) is !n 5!n!(o%y of e:$erience<7 c(oser to .e(( !nd !ssi%ned to 1uro$e!n (iter!ture. Si)i(!r(y< 4rye distin%uis es fi>e e(e>!tions of c !r!cters< - ose $resence in t e (iter!ry -or@ $roduces %eneric distinctions. If is %ener!(is!tions !nd t!bu(!tions !re interestin%< is i((ustr!tions !re e>en )ore $ersu!si>e< !nd is contribution to criticis) is< if $ossib(e< e>en %re!ter t !n t !t to t eory.
Q8 ;numerate /r)es five t)pes of !hara!ters an$ e0emplif) them (ith referen!e to literar) (or+s )ou are familiar (ith.0iii

0e$resent!ti>es: &E>et!n &odoro> (?u(%!ri!n< e)i%r!ted to t e 9.S.G e )o>ed !-!y fro) 4rye !nd to-!rds structur!(is))< 0ic !rd " !se< Les(ie *. 4ied(er< ' i(i$ W ee(-ri% t< Jennet ?ur@e< "(ifford HeertE (!(so c(!i)ed by cu(tur!( studies). The 0ew :or5 *ntellect"als: ! >ery (!r%e sc oo(< brin%in% to%et er critics !s di>erse !s: 0ic !rd " !se< Ir>in% .o-e< *(fred J!Ein< ' i(i$ 0! >< Lione( &ri((in%< Les(ie *. 4ied(er< Sus!n Sont!%< to n!)e on(y ! fe-. & eir -or@ -!s $ub(is ed in t e )ost $resti%ious Iourn!(s !nd re>ie-s< !nd t eir co))on deno)in!tor -!s #!r:=s e:!)in!tion of society. #ost not!b(e !)on% t e)< Lionel Trilling (19056 75) is neit er ! 4or)!(ist or 2e- "ritic< nor ! #!r:ist< in t !t !(t ou% is criticis) is soci!( !nd $o(itic!(< t ere is (itt(e sense of econo)ic deter)inis) !nd ideo(o%y< !nd e is c(e!r(y disi((usioned -it conte)$or!ry !>!t!rs of $o$u(ist $o(itics. 0!t er< e -!s ! (iber!( !nd ! critic (not ! t eoretici!n)< )uc of - ose -or@ too@ t e for) of ess!ys on ! (!r%e >!riety of -riters fro) -or(d (iter!ture. .is centr!(

2-

Part One

concern< !s discussed in The Li#eral 'magination (19/8)< is< in %ood *rno(di!n tr!dition< -it t e re(!tions i$ bet-een (iter!ture !nd inte((ection< t e sense in - ic (iter!ture )!nifests ide!s. .is @ey !r%u)ent !%!inst 2e- "riticis) is t !t concentr!tion on t e !est etic robs (iter!ture of its (ife -it in t e -or(d. In t e second $!rt of 5& e #e!nin% of ! Liter!ry Ide!<7 for inst!nce< in - ic e discusses )odernist *)eric!n no>e(ists< e !r%ues t !t 5t e !est etic effectNde$ends in (!r%e de%ree u$on inte((ectu!( $o-er< u$on t e !)ount !nd rec!(citr!nce of t e )!teri!( t e )ind -or@s on< !nd u$on t e )ind=s success in )!sterin% t e (!r%e )!teri!(.7 Ide!((y< !ccordin% to i)< t e )ind< (i@e t !t of 4!u(@ner or .e)in%-!y< s ou(d be on t e side of (iber!(is)< !nd t e !ssi)i(!tion of t e ide!tic )!teri!( unencu)bered by t e $ieties of re(i%ion !nd secu(!r $ i(oso$ y. 0eo-Aristotelianism; The Chicago Critics: t ey res !$ed t e (iter!ture curriculum !t t e 9ni>ersity of " ic!%o so !s to !cco))od!te ! ty$e of te!c in% b!sed on c(ose re!din%< te:tu!( e:$(ic!tion !nd !est etics. & is critic!( sc oo( co!%u(!ted !round (+S+ Crane (188361937)< e!d of t e 1n%(is De$!rt)ent t ere< !nd s !$ed t eir t eory !round *ristot(e=s %etaphysics r!t er t !n is Poetics< ! $ositi>istic< differenti!(< dyn!)ic )et od. & e -or@=s $o-er co)es fro) t e inferred sense of t e - o(e< not fro) t e $!rtsG in f!ct< our sense of t e - o(e !s ! $!ttern is - !t %o>erns t e $ercei>ed )e!nin% of t e $!rts. L!n%u!%e !nd for) !re i)$ort!nt on(y to t e e:tent to - ic t ey !re conduci>e to ! sense of ! 5concrete - o(e.7 Wit its $roto6structur!(ist concern -it %enres< scientific !)bitions< !nd co))it)ent to $(ur!(is)< "r!ne=s critic!( sc oo( sets itse(f !%!inst 2e- "riticis). *(t ou% e !%rees -it $ro$ositions suc !s t e !utono)y of t e !est etic !nd t e se$!r!tion of (iter!ry criticis) fro) (iter!ry istory< "r!ne !i)s to est!b(is ! )et odo(o%ic!( syste) of instru)ents !nd $resu$$ositions -it - ic to $rod t e (iter!ry te:t. *s it de>e(o$ed< o-e>er< t is !$$ro!c bec!)e too co)$(e: for c(!ssroo) !$$(ic!tionG - !t it %!ined in t eoretic!( ri%our it (ost in !ccessibi(ity. +f t e second %ener!tion of " ic!%o critics< ,ayne C+ $ooth (b. 1921)< es$eci!((y in is ,hetoric of .iction (1931)< $ro$oses to recu$er!te r etoric< or t e !rt of $ersu!sion< for (iter!ry study. .e distin%uis es bet-een t-o notions of r etoric: 5t e r etoric in fiction !s o>ert !nd reco%niE!b(e !$$e!( (t e )ost e:tre)e for) bein% !ut ori!( co))ent!ry) !nd fiction as r etoric in Ot e (!r%er sense< !n !s$ect of t e - o(e -or@ >ie-ed !s ! tot!( !ct of co))unic!tion.=7 In ot er -ords< e o$$oses tec nic!( )!tters (r etoric!( con>entions) to 5t e - o(e !rt of storyte((in% >ie-ed as r etoric!(.7 In t is conte:t< ?oot distin%uis es !)on% t e >!rious >oices< or 5$resences<7 in t e no>e(. & e $ersu!si>eness of ! (iter!ry -or@ is ! )!tter of controlling the distance bet-een re!der !nd t e different >oices< !nd t !t often re;uires cre!tin% de(iber!te confusion in t e re!der by usin% ! n!rr!tor or obser>er - o is i)se(f confused.

Q8 What are a!!or$ing to Wa)ne <. =ooth the roles pla)e$ in the rhetori! of the novel respe!tivel) b) the (riter implie$ author narrator an$ !hara!ters? 0iv

Part One

2+

+t er re$resent!ti>es: 0ic !rd #cJeon< 2or)!n 4ried)!n< 0!(f 0!der< Q!)es ' e(!n< 'eter 0!bino-itE< etc.

,0

Part One

Lect"re /* The Second Half of the Cent"ry Str"ct"ralism and Post-Str"ct"ralisms

Remember? 'arr) =lamires notes that up to the 5e!on$ Worl$ War !riti!ism ha$ been tightl) !onne!te$ to the $evelopments in literature (hereas after(ar$s it ten$e$ to isolate itself from the sphere of living literar) pro$u!tion an$ to $erive its impetus from philosoph) linguisti!s or so!ial theor) rather than from !ontemporar) or past literature. 'o(ever in Ameri!a li+e ever)(here else the !riti!s involvement in so!ial an$ politi!al matters began even earlier (hen in the late t(enties an$ the thirties the intelle!tuals of the 5outh felt the ,essiani! !alling to restore the !ountr) to its former preE<ivil War inno!en!e an$ $ignit).

& is )!@es it $r!ctic!((y i)$ossib(e to !tte)$t !ny sur>ey of criticis) in iso(!tion fro) t e cu(tur!( !nd t eoretic!( conte:t. ,incent ?. Leitc notes:
*t -or@ in t e e!r(y 1970s -ere 2e- "ritics< " ic!%o "ritics< 2e- For@ Inte((ectu!(s< #yt "ritics< $ eno)eno(o%ists< e:istenti!(ists< .er)eneutic!( "ritics< 0e!der6 0es$onse "ritics< structur!(ists< deconstructors< fe)inists< ?(!c@ *est etici!ns< !nd (eftists< !s -e(( !s te:tu!( sc o(!rs< (in%uists< (iter!ry istori!ns< bio%r!$ ers< (iter!ry Iourn!(ists< bib(io%r!$ ers< !nd nu)erous $oets< $(!y-ri% ts< !nd no>e(ists -ritin% criticis) !s ! side(ine. (1988: 181)

.o- does one @ee$ tr!c@ of !(( t !tD you -i(( !s@. We((< -e=(( see. *+ Str"ct"ralism
& e s$eci!( insi% t of t e structur!(ist !$$ro!c is t !t< t ou% lang"age )!y not be e>eryt in%< $r!ctic!((y e>eryt in% -e do t !t is s$ecific!((y u)!n is e:$ressed in (!n%u!%e. #ost ob>ious(y -e co))unic!te -it one !not er in undreds of On!tur!(= (!n%u!%es< - ose con>entions $red!te !ny u)!n )e)oryG !nd in recent dec!des -e !>e beco)e de$endent u$on co)$uters< - ose functionin% is b!sed on t e cre!tion of !rtifici!( (!n%u!%es for sortin% !nd $rocessin% d!t!< !nd for so(>in% $rob(e)s. (0ic ter 809)

#oreo>er< )ost of our d!i(y !cti>ities de$end on ! >!riety of ot er codes: )usic< f!s ion< )!nners< body (!n%u!%e< t e e:c !n%e of (!bour !nd %oods for sy)bo(s (c!s < c e;ues< stoc@ certific!tes)< t e e:c !n%e of -o)en bet-een f!)i(ies (in )!rri!%e C see LV>i6Str!uss)< etc. Structur!(is) is fund!)ent!((y !n !$$ro!c t !t !i)s !t t e systematicity of science !nd stresses t e disco!ery of inherent "nity !nd coherence< of or%!nisin% %rinci%les - ic )!@e sy)bo(s8 si%ns con>er%e to-!rds ! )ess!%e. & e )ess!%e is not !(-!ys i))edi!te(y ob>ious but it is %r!du!((y disc(osed t rou% ! series of semiotic transformations $erfor)ed by t e re!der.

Part One

,1

Structur!(is) re;uired ! )et od of !n!(ysin% syste)s of sy)bo(s< !nd t is -!s $ro>ided by t-o de>e(o$)ents. +ne -!s t e t eory of t e nineteent 6century *)eric!n $ i(oso$ er Charles Sanders Peirce< - ic is ter)ed semiotics. 'eirce di>ided si%n syste)s into t ree %ener!( ty$es: (1) iconic signs< in - ic t e si%nifier rese)b(es t e t in% si%nified (suc !s t e stic@ fi%ures on -!s roo) doors t !t si%nify O#en= or OWo)en=)G (2) inde&es< in - ic t e si%nifier is ! re(i!b(e indic!tor of t e $resence of t e si%nified ((i@e s)o@e !nd fire)G (3) tr"e symbols< in - ic t e si%nifier=s re(!tion to t e t in% si%nified is co)$(ete(y !rbitr!ry !nd con>ention!( (Iust !s t e sound 8@!t8 or t e -ritten -ord cat !re con>ention!( si%ns for t e f!)i(i!r fe(ine). & e ot er de>e(o$)ent -!s t e (in%uistic t eory of Ferdinand de Sa"ss"re (185761913)< - o est!b(is ed t !t t e s$eci!( sy)bo( syste)s of t e n!tur!( (!n%u!%es !re syste)s b!sed on differences. In is (ecture notes $ub(is ed $ost u)ous(y !s Cours de linguisti5ue g=n=rale (1913)< S!ussure est!b(is ed t e b!sic $rinci$(es of structur!( (in%uistics !nd of structur!(is) )ore %ener!((y. & ese $rinci$(es rest on ! nu)ber of tec nic!( distinctions (see 0ic ter 810).
Remember? Hangue vs. parole8 A language is a s)stem of !onstitutive rules ( langue": their relations an$ fun!tioning o!!ur in in$ivi$ual instan!es of spee!h pro$u!e$ b) spea+ers (parole". 5ee also Ioam <homs+) (ho $istinguishes bet(een !ompeten!e (i$eal language abilit)" an$ performan!e (in$ivi$ual linguisti! a!tivit)". A sign is an unstable !onventional unit represente$ b) a signifier ((or$" (hi!h has been assigne$ to a signifie$ (ob9e!t" b) so!ial !ontra!t. =oth s)n!hroni! an$ $ia!hroni! investigative approa!hes to language are possible. Para$igmata vs. s)ntagmata8 The t(o fun$amental relationships of s)mbols are parata0is (the relation of items in the same !ategor)" an$ s)nta0is (relations a!ross !ategories ma+ing up s)nta0". ;mes (the basi! an$ minimal units of a s)stem"8 e.g. phonemes (vs. allophones" le0emes morphemes: similarl) 6m)themes7 in HeviE5trauss 6i$eologemes7 in @ulia Bristeva et!. Hanguage is a s#stem o di erences: (e ma+e sense of it b) $istinguishing bet(een the various elements of a para$igmati! series.

*s 0o(!nd ?!rt es (1915680) s!id in 5& e Structur!(ist *cti>ity7 (193/)< structur!(is) is not ! set of be(iefs< but t-o co)$(e)ent!ry $r!ctices: analysis !nd synthesis. & e structur!(ist !n!(yses (i.e.< di>ides) t e $roducts of u)!n )!@in% into t eir s)!((est si%nific!nt co)$onent $!rts< t en tries to disco>er t e $rinci$(es of t eir artic"lation ( o- t e $!rts fit to%et er !nd function). In t is >ery bro!d sense< t e first structur!(ist -!s *ristot(e< !nd t e Poetics t e first -or@ of structur!(ist (iter!ry criticis). It -ou(d not be odd to consider for)!(ist critics (i@e 0.S. "r!ne !nd 2ort ro$ 4rye !s structur!(ists< !nd con>erse(y< )!ny istori!ns of (iter!ry criticis) consider structur!(is) to be !not er @ind of for)!(is). ?ut tod!y t e ter) is usu!((y restricted to t ose - ose $r!ctice of !n!(ysis !nd synt esis is

,2

Part One

$erfor)ed usin% t e too(s< tec ni;ues< !nd ter)ino(o%y of (in%uistics. 'er !$s t e c ief u)!n >ector for t e s$re!d of structur!(is) -!s (oman 4a5obson (189361982)< one of t e %re!t (in%uists of t e t-entiet century. In is $!$er on 5Lin%uistics !nd 'oetics7 (tr!ns(!ted in 1930)< Q!@obson $resented t e fo((o-in% )ode( of t e !ct of co))unic!tion: * sender< !>in% )!de contact -it ! recei!er< sends ! message !bout so)e e:tern!( conte+t usin% ! code. & ese si: f!ctors C sender< cont!ct< recei>er< )ess!%e< conte:t< !nd code C define si: f"nctions of co))unic!tion. #ost nor)!( co))unic!tion is referential< i.e.< it e)$ !siEes t e conte:t< t e content t !t is to be con>eyed. & e emoti!e function of co))unic!tion e)$ !siEes t e sender< - i(e t e conati!e e)$ !sises t e recei>er. & e phatic function is t !t of est!b(is in% cont!ct. & e metalinguistic function is to in>esti%!te t e code t !t sender !nd recei>er !re bot usin% to c(e!r u$ dis!%ree)ents !nd !)bi%uities. 4in!((y< t e poetic function centres on t e )ess!%e 5ua )ess!%e (see 0ic ter 81263). W i(e in (iter!ture t e $oetic is t e do)in!nt< t ou% not t e so(e< function< it !cts !s ! subsidi!ry< !ccessory constituent in !(( ot er >erb!( !cti>ities. & ree acts !re co)bined in !ny utter!nce: t e $ onic enunci!tion< t e e:tr!6(in%uistic reference< !nd t e !ct of st!tin%< !r%uin%< !s@in%< testifyin% etc. (i.e.< t e O(ocution!ry<= O$ro$osition!ry<= Oi((ocution!ry=). Structur!(is) bore t e $ro)ise of ! synt esis of !(( u)!n @no-(ed%e (si)i(!r to t e u)!nis) of t e 0en!iss!nce)< b!sed on t e notion t !t by usin% t e too(s of se)iotics !nd (in%uistics structur!(is) )i% t be !b(e to e(ucid!te br!nc es of @no-(ed%e !s di>erse !s (iter!ture< $ i(oso$ y< istory< )!t e)!tics< $o(itics< econo)ics< etc. 0ic ter co))ents:
& e c(!i)s )!y in f!ct !>e been i)$(!usib(e. +ne ;uestionNis - et er t e en!b(in% !ssu)$tion of structur!(is) C t !t e>eryt in% is ! (!n%u!%e C is !de;u!te. *s Q!)es ' e(!) !s su%%ested< (iter!ture is ! second-order si%n syste) bui(t u$on t e firstorder si%n syste) of (!n%u!%e. In effect< structur!(is) st!nds or f!((s on its !ssu)$tion t !t ! second6order syste) )ust re$roduce t e c!te%ories !nd re(!tions of t e first6 order syste). (817)

& e s!)e co))ent!tor $oints out t !t t e seeds of t e do-nf!(( of structur!(is) -ere cont!ined in its >ery $roIect: 5Structur!(is)Ns ifted t e focus of t e study of (iter!ture fro) t e e:e%esis of indi>idu!( te:ts to t e e:$(or!tion of %ener!( conditions of t e !ct of inter$ret!tion7 (817). & is -!s ! decisi>e )o>e to-!rds - !t c!)e to be @no-n !s 'oststructur!(is). #oreo>er< t e *n%(o6*)eric!n !bit of c(ose re!din%< furt ered by structur!(is)< f!ci(it!ted t e deconstructi>e turn. 0ic ter %oes on:
?ut of course< in !not er sense< structur!(is) is not de!d !t !((. & ou% it !s !d to re(in;uis its bro!dest !ssu)$tions to%et er -it its c !r!cter !s ! -or(d6 istoric!( )o>e)ent< )ost of its ori%in!( !d erents C (i@e &odoro> !nd 1co< Henette !nd 0iff!terre C !>e continued to $ursue t e study of syste)s of si%ns< !nd t e resu(ts of t eir study !>e beco)e< under t e n!)e se)iotics< sty(istics< !nd n!rr!to(o%y< essenti!( e(e)ents in t e current b!ttery of !$$ro!c es to (iter!ture. (818)

Part One

,"

& e )ost inf(uenti!( structur!(ist critics !re not *n%(o6*)eric!n< but 1uro$e!n: Cla"de L<!i-Stra"ss< - o studied t e structure of )yt !nd %!>e )ost >!(u!b(e !nt ro$o(o%ic!( !ccounts of cu(tureG 0o)!n Q!@obson< 2o!) " o)s@y !nd 0o(!nd ?!rt es )entioned !bo>eG 9)berto 1co !nd Her!rd Henette< - o focused on t e ro(e of t e re!der !nd t e structure !nd functionin% of n!rr!ti>e< res$ecti>e(y. *)on% t e *)eric!ns< "(e!nt ?roo@s< 0ene We((e@< W!yne ". ?oot < #ic !e( 0iff!terre< !(on%side t e 1n%(is Q.L. *ustin !nd Qon!t !n "u((er< !re t e )ost i)$ort!nt n!)es. **+ Poststr"ct"ralism=s> & e $eriod !fter Structur!(is) -ent out of f!s ion is $er !$s t e )ost difficu(t to describe< !nd !s %one under )!ny different n!)es. & e rest of t is c !$ter re$resents one !tte)$t to or%!nise t is )u(ti$(icityG one of t e ess!ys in t e second $!rt of t is boo@ is !not er. *t t is $oint< o-e>er< it -ou(d be usefu( to su) it u$ in re(!tion to one of t e (iter!ry !$$ro!c es t !t runs t rou% bot Structur!(is) !nd 'oststructur!(is)< n!)e(y 0arratology. -ar5 C"rrie< in ! se)in!( boo@ on Postmodern 0arrati!e Theory (1998)< e:$(!ins t e tr!nsition fro) Structur!(is) to 'oststructur!(is) !(on% t e (ines of t e s ifts under%one by t eories concernin% narrati!e in t e 1980s. .e be%ins by s o-in% t e -ides$re!d circu(!tion !tt!ined of (!te by t e conce$t of n!rr!ti>e< - ic !s co)e to enco)$!ss 5t e re$resent!tion of identity< in $erson!( )e)ory !nd se(f6re$resent!tion or in co((ecti>e identity of %rou$s suc !s re(i%ions< n!tions< r!ce !nd %ender7 (2) !nd !s !c;uired ! ;u!(ity of instability. "urrie e:$(!ins t is ne- ;u!(ity !s t e resu(t of t e shifts fro) 5disco>ery to in!ention< fro) co erence to com%le&ity< !nd fro) $oetics to %olitics7 (2). & us< - i(e Structur!(is) o$ed to de$(oy scientific (in%uistics= )et ods in order to disco>er t e in erent structure t !t cont!ins t e )e!nin% of !ny n!rr!ti>e< 'oststructur!(is) insists t !t !ny structure t !t c!n be !ssoci!ted -it ! cert!in n!rr!ti>e is in f!ct $ut t ere (5in>ented7) by t e re!der !s $!rt of t e reading (i.e.< inter$reti>e) !cti>ity< !nd t erefore !ny nu)ber of different< e>en contr!dictory< )e!nin%s c!n be !tt!c ed to !ny one te:t. & is !)ounts to ! deconstr"ction of e!r(ier n!rr!to(o%yG it in>o(>es 5t e destruction of its scientific !ut ority !nd A$ointsB to ! (ess reducti>e @ind of re!din% - ic AisB not under$inned by notions (i@e t e co erence of t e !ut ori!( $roIect or t e st!bi(ity of t e (!n%u!%e syste) in %ener!(7 (3). & e nu)ber of $ossib(e re!din%s< deconstructionists !nd istoricists !(i@e !r%ue< is on(y (i)ited by t e ideological disco"rse t !t surre$titious(y infor)s (!n%u!%e itse(f (see #ic e( 4ouc!u(t). 'oststructur!(is)=s effort to reinst!te istoric!( $ers$ecti>e in (iter!ry studies cou(d t us be s!id to !>e $ut t e n!rr!ti>e b!c@ in n!rr!to(o%y. Li@e t e Deconstructi>e !nd .istoricist trends< t is sub>ersion of structur!(ist n!rr!to(o%y be%!n in t e (!te 1930s !nd !tt!ined its )ost co erent t eoretic!( e:$ression in t e 1980s. *not er -!y of t in@in% of 'oststructur!(is) is !s !n !%e of dissensus or differends< in - ic t e !$$!rent(y co erent critic!( discourse of 4or)!(is)(s) bre!@s do-n !s ! resu(t of t e intense $o(iticis!tion of (iter!ry studies !nd is re$(!ced by ! $(ur!(ity of discourses. &o use 4ean-Fran?ois Lyotard=s ter)s< t e

,/

Part One

9rand 0arrati!es or co erent -or(d>ie-s (e.%. istory< et ics< !est etics< etc.) )!@e roo) for t e little narrati!es of d!y6to6d!y e:istence. Phenomenological and #&istentialist Criticism ' i(oso$ ic!( criticis) c!)e fro) 1uro$e to *)eric! in t-o -!>es: one in t e 1950s< !nd t e second in t e 1970s. :> & e first -!>e -!s res$onsib(e for $ eno)eno(o%ic!( !nd e:istenti!(ist !-!reness !nd $ i(oso$ ic!( !nd cu(tur!( criticis)< !s -e(( !s for t e co6i)$(ic!tion of subIect (re!der) !nd obIect (te:t)< !(t ou% < under t e $o-erfu( o$$osin% inf(uence of 2e- "riticis) !nd 4or)!(is)< it did not brin% -it it $syc o!n!(ysis. & !t -!s to co)e (!ter< !s ' eno)eno(o%ic!( criticis) e>o(>ed into 0e!der60es$onse t eory. .o-e>er< it -!s t e second -!>e t !t !ctu!((y !d ! u%e i)$!ct on *)eric!n criticis) !nd cu(tur!( t eory< resu(tin% in 'oststructur!(is). 4ocus: Inf(s.: 0e$s.: Phenomenology @no-(ed%e (e$iste)o(o%ic!( $ i(oso$ y) 1d)und .usser(< 0o)!n In%!rden< H!ston ?!c e(!rd< Wo(f%!n% Iser Q. .i((is #i((er< Heoffrey .!rt)!n< Le0oi Qones< 1d-!rd S!id #&istentialism t e ;uestion of bein% (onto(o%ic!( $ i(oso$ y) #!rtin .eide%%er< Qe!n6'!u( S!rtre< Heor%es 'ou(et< I !b .!ss!n< Sus!n Sont!%

Post-Str"ct"ralism; 'econstr"ction & e ince$tion of 'oststructur!(is) is connected -it F!(e 9ni>ersity in t e (!te 1930s. *ccordin% to Ste>en "onnor< 5AtB e $!ss!%e fro) structur!(is) to $ost6 structur!(is) c!n be described !s ! $!ss!%e fro) centred to decentred or centre(ess structures.7 & e 5co)$u(si>e orbitin% !round t is >ery conce$t6)et!$ or in $ost6structur!(ist criticis)7 (73367) is !(so - !t )!de it !n insufficient< tr!nsition!( (iter!ry t eory< !(t ou% in t e fie(d of cu(tur!( t eory it !s !d ! (on%er6(!stin% i)$!ct. *ccordin% to t e 4renc $ i(oso$ er 4ac)"es 'errida (19306200/)< t e ori%in!tor of t is t eoretic!( )o>e)ent< t e centre< t e foc!( $oint of !ny structure !s $ro)oted by structur!(is)< does not !>e concrete e:istence< !nd is t erefore bot inside !nd outside t e structure it is su$$osed to %o>ern.
& e >ery ide! of t e centre is t us for Derrid! not ! s$ont!neous confir)!tion of t e $rinci$(e of or%!nic (ife< but ! conce$tu!( >io(ence< $r!ctised not on(y in structur!(is)< but t rou% out t e istory of t ou% t in t e West< in order to cont!in or re$ress t e $(!y of $ure re(!tions i$ bet-een si%ns.N Derrid!=s o-n co)$ens!tin% >io(ence is to ri$ !$!rt t e or%!nic bond of interde$endence bet-een structure !nd centre< to (e!>e structures of $ure !nd !bso(ute re(!tions i$ C !(t ou% e coo((y !d)its in $!ssin% t !t ! structure -it out ! centre is !rd(y t in@!b(e< indeed )!y re$resent t e unt in@!b(e itse(f. (7/061)

Deconstruction !(so st!rted in t e (!te 1930s !nd e!r(y 70s. #ost of its re$resent!ti>es C -it t e e:ce$tion of '!u( de #!n (- o be(ie>es t ere is no

Part One

,.

direct re(!tion bet-een (!n%u!%e !nd re!(ity) C -ere inf(uenced by Q!c;ues Derrid!=s t eory of centres - ic c!nnot o(d !nd )!r%ins - ic c!n )o>e free(y to t e centre. Deconstruction is often re%!rded !s ! f!ction of $oststructur!(is)< %i>en t eir co))on interest in debun@in% tr!dition!( >ie-s of t e -or(d !s r!tion!((y or%!nised !round ier!rc ies !nd centres. +t er co))ent!tors be(ie>e t !t t ere is !n !()ost e:!ct coincidence bet-een $oststructur!(is) !nd deconstruction< - i(e sti(( ot ers t!@e t e for)er deno)in!tor to refer to ! - o(e ne- !%e< -it t e (!tter !s its !$$(ic!tion in cu(tur!( !nd (iter!ry studies. Deconstruction re!ds te:ts against the grain< re>e!(in% t e instability of )e!nin% !nd t e in erent arbitrariness of ier!rc ies !nd $references. It does not !i) to re>erse ier!rc ies but to to$$(e !nd re$(!ce t e) -it radical do"bt !bout t eir (e%iti)!cy. & e confusions t !t deconstruction un>ei(s !re t ose of t e critic!( tr!dition< not of t e te:t. & us< deconstruction is $ri)!ri(y )e!nt !s criti;ue< not criticis). It refuses to 5ser>e !ny syste) of >!(ues - ic ens rines ! cert!in $o-er distribution< but indic!tes inste!d t e fund!)ent!( structure of et ics< ! disco"rse of self-resistance.7 .ence< it is not ! ni i(istic enter$rise< in t !t it does not deny t e e:istence of >!(ue !nd )e!nin%< but its $ri)!ry concern is -it - !t t ere is in (!n%u!%e8 te:t t !t c!n constitute so )!ny )e!nin%s< )u(ti$(e !nd !)bi%uous< !nd t en under)ine t e) (2i%e( #!$$ in "oy(e et !(. 788). $arbara 4ohnson< in The Critical Difference& *ssays in the Contemporary ,hetoric of ,eading (1980)< %i>es ! f!)ous definition:
Deconstruction is not synony)ous -it destruction.N It is in f!ct )uc c(oser to t e ori%in!( )e!nin% of t e -ord analysis< - ic ety)o(o%ic!((y )e!ns 5to undo7 C ! >irtu!( synony) for 5to de6construct.7 & e de6construction of ! te:t does not $roceed by r!ndo) doubt or !rbitr!ry sub>ersion< but by t e c!refu( te!sin% out of t e -!rrin% forces of si%nific!tion -it in t e te:t itse(f. If !nyt in% is destroyed in ! deconstructi>e re!din%< it is not t e te:t< but t e c(!i) to une;ui>oc!( do)in!tion of one )ode of si%nifyin% o>er !not er. (5< )y e)$ !sis)

+r< !s Pa"l de -an (1919683) $uts it< 5no ot er -ord st!tes so econo)ic!((y t e i)$ossibi(ity to e>!(u!te $ositi>e(y or ne%!ti>e(y t e inesc!$!b(e e>!(u!tion it i)$(ies.7 Derrid! is -!ry of !ny definition of deconstruction !nd $refers to (ist !(( t e t in%s deconstruction is not (!nd - ic < incident!((y< !re e:!ct(y t e ter)s one -ou(d be )ost te)$ted to identify it -it ): )et od< t eory< sc oo(< )o>e)ent< etc. (see 5Letter to ! Q!$!nese 4riend7). & e )ost !$$ro$ri!te ter) to !$$(y to it is $rob!b(y 5inter!ention<7 ! tribute to its $erfor)!ti>e ;u!(ity. Jey conce$ts: S!ussure=s sense of difference @ Remember? +iff,rance (Derrid!) M difference W deferr!(: t e )e!nin% of ! si%n is bot s$!ti!((y8 sync ronic!((y different fro) t !t of ot er si%ns !nd deferred (te)$or!((y) unti( it c!n be co)$ounded by t e si%ns t !t $recede !nd fo((o- it. 5& ere is nothing o"tside the te&t.7 8 5& ere is no O o"tside the te&t=.7 (Derrid!) C i.e.< t ere is no obIecti>e $osition outside t e te:t fro) - ic t e te:t c!n be inter$reted< bec!use t ere is no $osition outside (!n%u!%e fro) - ic

,2

Part One

(!n%u!%e c!n be >ie-ed obIecti>e(y. Trace (Derrid!): !ny si%n is e)bedded in ! conte:t !nd its )e!nin% be!rs t e tr!ce of t e si%ns t !t surround itG t e )e!nin% of ! si%n is ne>er co)$(ete in itse(f. *rony (de #!n !nd .!rt)!n) M t e uni>ers!( $redic!)ent of (!n%u!%e< t e etern!( $rob(e) of underst!ndin%: t e conf(ict bet-een r etoric!( !nd %r!))!tic!( si%nific!tions. -poria (de #!n) M ! true o$$osition - ic b(oc@s< ! $!r!do: - ic u(ti)!te(y c!nnot be so(>ed !nd - ic c!nnot be !ssi)i(!ted by ! tro$e< ! conf(ict bet-een t e )!teri!(ity !nd $ eno)en!(ity of (!n%u!%e. ?(!)ires su)s deconstruction u$ !s fo((o-s:
ADerrid!B !tt!c@ed t e 5logocentrism7 - ic < by %i>in% $ri)!cy to s$eec o>er -ritin%< $resu$$oses ! fusion bet-een t e si%nifier !nd t e si%nified. Derrid! %i>es $ri)!cy to -ritin%< - ere t e re!(is!tion of t e )e!nin% is !(-!ys $ost$oned by t e >ery f!ct t !t it -i(( !(-!ys be re!d !nd re6inter$reted in t e future. & is f!ct se$!r!tes t e si%nified fro) t e si%nifier te)$or!((y. & e )e!nin% is 5deferred<7 !nd Derrid! coined t e -ord 5diff<rance7 to e:$ress t e du!( s$!ti!( 5difference7 !nd te)$or!( 5defer)ent7 det!c in% t e si%n fro) t e fu(( $resence of its )e!nin%. .e denies t !t -ritin% is second!ry to s$eec or doub(es t e %!$ bet-een signifier !nd signified. (333< )y e)$ !sis) %&! <he!+ (ith =arr) (#GG#8 J%ED" to fin$ out (hat $e!onstru!tive an$ poststru!turalist !riti!s $o.

Deconstruction deri>ed fro)< - i(e critic!( of< .usser(i!n !nd .eide%%eri!n $ eno)eno(o%y< S!ussure!n !nd Le>i6Str!ussi!n structur!(is)< !nd 4reudi!n !nd L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis< !nd -!s cruci!((y infor)ed by t e te:ts of 2ietEsc eG )ore i)$ort!nt(y< it t!@es u$ t e ne- critic!( )et od of c(ose re!din% !nd $roceeds ind"cti!ely to deri>e tenets of its o-n re%!rdin% t e se(f6referenti!(ity of (!n%u!%e !nd< i)$(icit(y< of t e te:t. +t er inf(uences: Heor%e ?!t!i((e< #ic e( 4ouc!u(t< 0o(!nd ?!rt es< Qu(i! Jriste>!< Qe!n ?!udri((!rd< Qe!n64r!ncois Lyot!rd< Hi((es De(euEe !nd 4e(i: Hu!tt!ri. 0e$resent!ti>es: '!u( de #!n ()ost i)$ort!nt $ro)oter)< .!ro(d ?(oo) ($!rti!((y)< Heoffrey .!rt)!n< Q. .i((is #i((er< S os !n! 4e()!n< ?!rb!r! Qo nson< H!y!tri " !@r!>orty S$i>!@< Qon!t !n "u((er< etc. -ar&ist Criticism 5It is no !ccident t !t so )!ny of t e i)$ort!nt -or@s of ?ritis !nd *)eric!n istoricist sc o(!rs i$ -ritten fro) t e 19/0s to t e 1970s (-it not!b(e e:ce$tions< (i@e " risto$ er .i((=s %ilton and the *nglish ,e!olution ) $roceeded in de(iber!te disre%!rd of #!r: !nd is t eories of istory !nd cu(ture7 (0ic ter 108768). & e re!son -!s t e "o(d W!r. In t e 1970s< o-e>er< $!rt(y !s ! resu(t of t e intensific!tion of t e ci>i( ri% ts )o>e)ents< it bec!)e $ossib(e to re6e>!(u!te t e -or@ of #!r: !nd to >ie- (iter!ture !s ! soci!( te:t !nd t e $roduct of istory. Karl -ar&=s istoricis) -!s ! $roduct of t e (!te 1n(i% ten)ent. & e centr!(

Part One

,,

conce$ts of #!r:ist t eory< base >s. s"%erstr"ct"re< co)e fro) #!r:=s material dialectics. & ey st!nd for t e )!teri!( re!(ities< soci!( re(!tions dict!ted by t e )ode of $roduction !t ! %i>en istoric!( )o)ent< but !(so t e ide!s< t e $ i(oso$ y !nd ideo(o%y t !t %o>ern t e)< on t e one !nd< >s. t e e)bodi)ent of t ose be(iefs< ideo(o%ies< !ssu)$tions< in !rt< inte((ectu!( O-or(d >ie-s= !nd ot er conscious(y e(d ide!s. Liter!ture !nd (iter!ry criticis) !re $!rt of t e su$erstructure< n!tur!((y< but in #!r:ist criticis) t ey !re !$$ro!c ed< (i@e e>eryt in% e(se< t rou% ! c!refu( consider!tion of t e b!se - ic !d conditioned t e) !t t e ti)e of t eir $roduction. & e b!se is c !r!cterised by c(!ss conf(icts !nd cross6c(!ss )obi(ity. & is r!t er si)$(istic >ie- of t e functionin% of society !nd t e cre!tion of cu(ture -!s res !$ed by Lo"is Alth"sser=s definition of ideology !nd of its functionin%. Ideo(o%y< s!ys *(t usser< is 5t e O(i>ed= re(!tion bet-een )en !nd t eir -or(d< or ! ref(ected for) of t is unconscious re(!tion.7 *ccordin% to i)< t e do)in!nt c(!ss ensures its sur>i>!( by infi(tr!tin% !(( institutions -it ! set of be(iefsG t ese institutions beco)e *deological State A%%arat"ses !nd t ey r!n%e fro) sc oo(s to os$it!(s !nd fro) t e!tres to $rison ouses !nd t e $o(ice force. & us< ideo(o%y is diffused beyond reco%nition !nd t!@en for %r!nted by t e subIects - o) it inter%ellates (i.e.< c!((s u$on< su))ons) d!i(y -it out t eir bein% !-!re of it. & e It!(i!n soci!( t eorist Antonio 9ramsci defines hegemony in >ery si)i(!r ter)s: it is !n infor)!(< un!c@no-(ed%ed< yet !((6$er>!si>e (i>ed syste) of )e!nin%s !nd >!(ues t rou% - ic $o-er is )!nifested. .e%e)ony is 5! )o>in% e;ui(ibriu)7 !c ie>ed by )e!ns of ! co)bin!tion of coercion !nd consent< t rou% t e continu!( dyn!)ics of $ro>ision!( !((i!nces bet-een >!rious soci!( %rou$s. It is< if you -is < cu(ture itse(f< insof!r !s cu(ture bot ref(ects !nd $ro$!%!tes t e re(!tions of do)in!nce !nd subordin!tion bet-een $!rticu(!r c(!sses (see 0!y)ond Wi((i!)s). & us< in t e )ore recent >ersions of #!r:is)< t e b!se (i.e.< econo)y) inf(uences t e su$erstructure on(y in the last instance (*(t usser=s $ r!se). (aymond ,illiams (1921688) is one of t e )ost i)$ort!nt ?ritis #!r:ists to d!te. .e found Hr!)sci es$eci!((y con%eni!(< !nd de>ised !n inf(uenti!( t eory of t e dyn!)ics of cu(ture. *ccordin% to i)< cu(ture is in $er$etu!( %rocess of for)!tion< c !r!cterised by t e coe:istence !t !ny ti)e of dominant. emergent !nd resid"al cu(tur!( $r!ctices< be(on%in% to c(!sses - ose $o-er !s $e!@ed or is incre!sin% or decre!sin%. & ey !re to be found in (!tent for) in - !t e c!((s str"ct"res of feeling< i.e.< soci!( se)!ntic for)!tions 5in so(ution<7 r!t er t !n 5$reci$it!ted<7 t !t is< in )o>e)ent !nd e>o(ution. #!r:is) brin%s to (iter!ry studies ! s !r$ ed%e t !t sets off not on(y t e soci!( !s$ects de!(t -it in )inor< %ener!((y )!r%in!(ised no>e(s - ic it recu$er!tes !nd fore%rounds< but !(so t eir !tte)$t to effect soci!( !nd $o(itic!( c !n%e. #!r:ist criticis) t us !c ie>es its !(()!r@ doub(e )o>e: it bot de>!(ues !nd re6>!(orises (iter!ture: it reIects !nd discredits !ny notions of O i% = (iter!ture !nd c!nons< re$(!cin% t e) -it t e )ore %enerous notion of 1riting (- ic inc(udes non6fiction -ritin%< suc !s bio%r!$ ies< $eriodic!( ess!ys< di!ries etc.)<

,-

Part One

!nd endo-s it -it $o(itic!( !nd soci!( $o-er. & us< for inst!nce< t e $rescri$ti>e re!(is) of t e 19t century is founded on t e insistence t !t fiction c!nnot effect soci!( !nd $o(itic!( c !n%eG #!r:ist criticis) s o-s t !t it c!n !nd it does< )!teri!((y< contributin% to t e est!b(is )ent of de)ocr!tic for)s. Inf(uences: H.W.4. .e%e(< J!r( #!r: !nd 4riedric 1n%e(sG t e 4r!n@furt Sc oo(: #!: .or@ ei)er< & eodor *dorno< W!(ter ?enI!)in< 1ric 4ro))< Leo Lo-ent !(< .erbert #!rcuseG Heor% Lu@Xcs. 0e$resent!ti>es: &erry 1!%(eton< 4redric Q!)eson< 0!y)ond Wi((i!)s< Stu!rt .!((< 0ic !rd .o%%!rt< ,.4. "!(>erton< Hr!n>i((e .ic@s< 0oy .!r>ey 'e!rce< *(fred J!Ein< Ir>in% .o-e< Qo n 4is@e (#!r:ist )edi! critic)< Q!)es &. 4!rre((< etc. 0ew Historicism; C"lt"ral -aterialism&!i C"lt"ral -aterialism< essenti!((y ! #!r:ist t eory of cu(ture< is current(y one of t e )ost inf(uenti!( critic!( currents in ?rit!in. It st!rted -it t e $ub(ic!tion in 1973 of (aymond ,illiams= The Country and the City. *ccordin% to Wi((i!)s< t ere is ! di!(ectic!( re(!tions i$ bet-een soci!( order !nd t e cu(tur!( for)s it $roduces: not on(y does society sti)u(!te t e de>e(o$)ent of cert!in %enres (e.%. dr!)!< no>e() !nd cu(tur!( $ eno)en! (e.%. $eriodic!(s)< but t e ide!(is!tions of $oetry !nd t e re%u(!tory function of %enres< in t eir turn< contribute to t e conso(id!tion of t e soci!( order. #oreo>er< n!tion ood -!s ori%in!((y i)!%ined into e:istence t rou% its re$resent!tions in (iter!ture !nd cu(tur!( for)s. & is is es$eci!((y >!(id of t e $eriod of )odernis!tion st!rtin% !round 1550 (t e e!r(y )odern $eriod) !nd (!stin% unti( 1880 (t e $eriod of i% n!tion!(is) !nd i)$eri!(is)) in ?rit!in. & is $eriod of t e e)er%ence of )odernity coincides -it t e de>e(o$)ent of t e n!tion6st!te by )e!ns of ! r!n%e of centr!(ised $o(itic!( !nd soci!( institutions< !s -e(( !s tec no(o%ies of co))unic!tion (e.%. ste!) $rint) !nd tr!ns$ort (e.%. r!i(-!y)< - ic encour!%e t in@in% in ter)s of be(on%in% to (!r%er structures t !n t e (oc!( co))unity of e!r(ier d!ys. *fter Wi((i!)s= de!t < L!c!ni!n t eories of (!n%u!%e !c;uisition< 4reud=s !n!(ysis of t e sub(i)!tion of se:u!( desire< !nd Jriste>i!n se)iotics !>e been brou% t to be!r on t e de>e(o$)ent of cu(tur!( )!teri!(is). 2e- .istoricis) !s !n e;u!((y e:!ct birt d!te: 5?orn !round 1982< t e neistoricis) ;uic@(y bec!)e one of t e )ost >it!( )odes of (iter!ry study in t e 1980s7 (0ic ter 120/). & e youn% 0en!iss!nce sc o(!r Ste%hen 9reenblatt (b. 19/3) $ioneered !nd %!>e t e n!)e to t is ne- orient!tion in t e 9nited St!tes. In subse;uent ye!rs< its focus e:tended r!$id(y to co)$rise t e - o(e of (iter!ry istory< !nd its e)$ !sis is on t e ine>it!b(e subIecti>ity (or $osition!(ity) of inter$ret!tion. It st!rts fro) #!r:ist di!(ectic!( criticis)< !s ! re!ction !%!inst t e tr!dition!( istoricis) of t e 19 t century< but it does !-!y -it t e #!r:ist o$$osition bet-een b!se !nd su$erstructure !nd !b!ndons t e be(ief in istory !s )i)esis (i.e. direct re$resent!tion of e>ents in t e -or(d) in f!>our of ! >ie- of history< $ro$osed by Hayden ,hite (b. 1928)< !s narrati!e< !s te:t )!r@ed by ine:$(ic!b(e ga%s !nd r"%t"res. 0obert "on D!>is !nd 0on!(d Sc (eifer e:$(!in:

Part One

,+

& is se;uence of istory itse(f e(!bor!tes re(!tions i$s t !t be(on% to - !t Fo"ca"lt c!((s !n epistem,< not ! )ode of t ou% t t !t c !r!cteriEes !n !%e (!s in t e Oo(d= istoricis))< but t e discursi>e limits on - !t c!n be t ou% t or Odiscursi>iEed= !t !ny $!rticu(!r )o)ent< so t !t istory !s ! disci$(ine necess!ri(y tr!ces ru$tures r!t er t !n continuities !nd e)$ty s$!ces -it in !nd bet-een e$iste)Vs. (1991: 212< )y e)$ !sis)

& is de)yt o(o%isin% of istory !s encour!%ed critics bot to >ie- istory !s ! s$ecies of (!n%u!%e< !s !not er %enre e:istin% side by side -it (iter!ture< !nd to (oo@ beyond for)!(ist !est etics in order to re!d (iter!ture in t e conte:t of $o-er re(!tions !nd $r!ctices. *ccordin% to 2e- .istoricis)< istory is not ! se;uence of f!cts< !nd it is not ! )ode of t ou% t. In %ood Derride!n !nd 4ouc!u(di!n $oststructur!(ist tr!dition< Ote:t= is to be understood ere not !s !n in>ention of t e )ind< but !s $o(itic!( !nd ideo(o%ic!( $r!ctices o$er!tin% ! nu)ber of $ro%r!))!tic e:c(usions in t e $rocess of n!rr!ti>is!tion. It is !(( !bout - ose istory %ets to(d (see Linda H"tcheon). *s suc < istory is no (on%er ! 9rand 0arrati!e< but ! series of little narrati!es or ( i)stories< in t e $(ur!(< - ose constructedness is const!nt(y !t issue. & e %re!test )erit of 2e- .istoricis) is to !>e recu$er!ted t e (ess >isib(e stories of )!r%in!(iEed et nic !nd %ender %rou$s< !nd to !>e fore%rounded t e i)$!ct of ideo(o%y on t e -!y in - ic istory is constructed. Inf(uences: t e (!ter S!rtre!n e:istenti!( $ eno)eno(o%y< #ic e( 4ouc!u(t=s structur!(is)< Derride!n deconstruction< so)eti)es 4reudi!n !nd L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis< !nd 20t 6century neo6#!r:is). 0e$resent!ti>es: Ste$ en Hreenb(!tt< .!yden W ite< St!n(ey 4is < Wes(ey #orris< 0oy .!r>ey 'e!rce< 4redric Q!)eson< 1ric Sund;uist< Lind! .utc eon< 0!y)ond Wi((i!)s< &erry 1!%(eton< ?ri!n #c.!(e< '!trici! W!u% < ?enedict *nderson< &o) 2!irn. C"lt"ral St"dies In 1998 0ic ter co((!$ses 2e- .istoricis)< "u(tur!( Studies !nd 'ostco(oni!( Studies into one c !$ter< !(t ou% e e:$(!ins t e) in se$!r!te subdi>isions of t e Introduction to it:
"u(tur!( studies is t e O e%e)onic= critic!( discourse !t t e )o)ent< one t !t cont!ins t e u)!nities !nd soci!( sciences= co((ecti>e res$onse to - !t -e )i% t c!(( t e 1r! of Hr!nd & eory< t e t-o dec!des be%innin% -it t e structur!(ist re>o(ution in t e 1930s.N In its enor)ous >!riety !nd ec(ecticis)< cu(tur!( studies is not ! ne$!r!di%) of @no-(ed%e so )uc !s ! -!y of )!@in% do te)$or!ri(y -it out ! $!r!di%). +r !s ,incent Leitc $uts it< cu(tur!( studies 5!s$ired to be ! ne- disci$(ine but ser>ed !s !n unst!b(e )eetin% $oint for >!rious interdisci$(in!ry fe)inists< #!r:ists< (iter!ry !nd )edi! critics< $ost)odern t eorists< soci!( se)iotici!ns< r etorici!ns< fine !rts s$eci!(ists< !nd socio(o%ists !nd istori!ns of cu(ture.7 (121768)

*s -e s!- e!r(ier< t e s!)e cou(d be s!id< t-enty ye!rs !%o< !bout 'oststructur!(is). ?e t !t !s it )!y< "u(tur!( !nd Intercu(tur!( Studies< !(on%side t e youn%er Interdisci$(in!ry !nd &r!nsdisci$(in!ry Studies< !>e beco)e one of t e )ost inf(uenti!(< e>er6e:$!ndin% t eoretic!( fie(ds. ?oo@s !ddressin% cu(tur!(

-0

Part One

studies by n!)e did not be%in to !$$e!r unti( t e e!r(y 1990s< but its be%innin%s c!n be tr!ced b!c@ to t e 1950s !nd 1930s. & e ter) itse(f -!s coined by St"art Hall !nd (ichard Hoggart in 193/< - en t ey founded t e ?ir)in% !) "entre for "onte)$or!ry "u(tur!( Studies. .o-e>er< its roots !s ! disci$(ine c!n be tr!ced b!c@ to t e -or@ of #!tt e- *rno(d in t e nineteent century. In its !$$ro!c to t e -or(d !s soci!( te:t< t is t eory co>ers issues !s >!ried !s !nt ro$o(o%ic!( studies (!s in Clifford 9eert6=s 5thic5 descri%tion7 of t e ?!(inese ci>i(is!tion)G )edi! studies ( St"art Hall. (aymond ,illiams )G structur!(ist studies of fi()< t e!tre $erfor)!nce< )usic (e.%.< #!donn! studies)< d!nce< !d>ertise)ent< e)broidery< s o$$in% centres< f!s ion< s$orts %!)esG t e do)estic ouse o(d (0ancy Armstrong)G subcu(tur!( studies ('ic5 Hebdige)< etc. *t t e s!)e ti)e< in *)eric! !nd ?rit!in it o>er(!$s $!rti!((y -it < !nd is infor)ed by< et nic !nd $ostco(oni!( studies< res$ecti>e(y. 4und!)ent!((y it concerns itse(f -it t e )e!nin% !nd $r!ctices of e>eryd!y (ife< !nd -it t e >!(ue !tt!c ed to >!rious obIects !nd $r!ctices in >!rious cu(tures. Jey focuses !re %ower dynamics !nd c"lt"ral 5nowledge< !nd t e subt(e re(!tions est!b(is ed bet-een t e)< es$eci!((y in t e -!@e of t e -or(d-ide s$re!d of c!$it!(is)< ot er-ise @no-n !s globalisation.
Wh) !ultural stu$ies? Ri!hter e0plains8 6Investment ban+ers (ere on!e e0pe!te$ to rea$ @ane Austen an$ be able to Fuote 5ha+espeare: to$a)s managers of mutual fun$s nee$ onl) +no( (hether revenues from Benneth =ranaghs 'amlet surpasse$ ,el 4ibsons at the bo0 offi!e7 (1#1D".

Inf(uences: J!r( #!r:< W!(ter ?enI!)in< #ic e( 4ouc!u(t< 0o(!nd ?!rt es< Qe!n ?!udri((!rd< 'ierre ?ourdieu< Qe!n64r!ncois Lyot!rd. +t er re$resent!ti>es: .enry 2!s S)it < Qudit ?ut(er< L!uren ?er(!nt< 4redric Q!)eson< etc. #thnic St"dies and Post-Colonialism 1t nic !nd 'ostco(oni!( Studies !>e in co))on t e !tte)$t to dis$(!ce t e 5de!d - ite )!(e7 c!non !nd c!(( !ttention to $re>ious(y si(enced !nd )isre$resented subordin!te cu(tures in *)eric! !nd t e for)er ?ritis 1)$ire res$ecti>e(y. #ic !e( 0y!n e:$(!ins: 5W i(e science c!sts doubt on t e ide! t !t t e u)!n s$ecies bre!@s do-n into sub6s$ecies c!((ed r!ces< et nicity re)!ins ! $o-erfu( c!te%ory for or%!nisin% u)!n e:$erience7 (178). W !t )!@es t e difference !re t e soci!( $r!ctices - ic codify et nic be(on%in%. 0y!n %i>es t e e:!)$(e of &oni #orrison=s Belo!ed to s o- o- 5AeB>en if b(!c@ s@in is u(ti)!te(y )e!nin%(ess !s ! bio(o%ic!( )!r@er< it is ne>ert e(ess ! si%n of ! sc!rred istoric!( re!(ity -it reson!nces in t e $resent7 (179). 1t nic differences $ersist to t is d!y $ri)!ri(y !s econo)ic differences< t e resu(t of for)er econo)ic e:$(oit!tion of one %rou$ by !not er< of - ic s(!>ery is t e )ost ob>ious e:!)$(e. In c!((in% !ttention to t e distincti>e cu(tur!(< soci!( !nd $syc o(o%ic!( e:$eriences of >!rious %rou$s< et nic studies !s contributed to $us in% (iter!ry study to-!rd cu(tur!( studies

Part One

-1

(0y!n 182). & ere !re t-o st!%es in $lac5 Aesthetics in t e 9S: 1) ci>i( ri% ts )o>e)ent< 195/6193/G 2) b(!c@ $o-er< 193/61973. *fter t ese st!%es of )i(it!nt et nic !ssertion t ere -!s ! consider!b(e bro!denin% of t e s$ectre of studies< - ic )o>ed on to cu(tur!( t eory !nd interdisci$(in!ry !$$ro!c es< r!t er t !n socio6 $o(itic!( criti;ue. & ese $ !ses )ore or (ess corres$ond in %ostcolonial st"dies to t ree $ !ses - ic ?!rry c!((s Adopt (un;uestionin% !cce$t!nce of t e !ut ority of 1uro$e!n )ode(s< -it t e !)bition of -ritin% )!ster$ieces in t is tr!dition)< Adapt (!d!$tin% t e 1uro$e!n for) to co(oni!( )!tters< !ssu)in% $!rti!( ri% ts of inter>ention in t e %enre)< !nd Adept (! dec(!r!tion of cu(tur!( inde$endence). & is e>o(ution is not dissi)i(!r to t !t of fe)inist studies: t e first ste$ for co(onised $eo$(e in findin% ! >oice !nd identity of t eir o-n is to rec(!i) t eir o-n $!st !nd tr!ditions. & is c!n be !ssi)i(!ted to ! (iber!(6 u)!nistic st!%e< (!ter fo((o-ed by< but !(so coe:istin% -it < one inf(uenced by $ost6structur!(is) !nd deconstruction< - en 5t e e)$ire -rites b!c@7 (tit(e of boo@ by $ill Ashcroft). So)e of t e )ost i)$ort!nt c !r!cteristics of $ost6co(oni!( studies !re: !n !-!reness of re$resent!tions of t e non61uro$e!n !s e:otic or i))or!( O Other=G concern -it (!n%u!%e< !nd recu$er!tion of t e (!n%u!%es or di!(ects of t e co(onisedG e)$ !sis on identity !s doub(ed< or O hybrid=< or Ohy%henated=< or "nstableG stress on cross6 cu(tur!( inter!ctions. 1t nic studies d-e(( on t e (iter!ry !c ie>e)ents of )inority %rou$s in t e 9nited St!tes< - ere!s 'ostco(oni!( studies !n!(yse t e $roductions of -riters born in t e ?ritis co(onies. In et nic studies< t e %re!test inf(uence is t !t of W.1.?. Du?ois< - o s$o@e !bout 5doub(e consciousness7 C bein% bot *)eric!n !nd 2e%ro. 0e$resent!ti>es: I)!)u *)iri ?!r!@! (Le0oi Qones)< *(ice W!(@er< &oni #orrisonG H!y!tri " !@r!>orty S$i>!@< 1d-!rd S!id< .o)i ? !b !< '!u( Hi(roy< etc. Psychoanalytical Criticism 'syc o!n!(ysis is t e in>esti%!tion of 5t e discourse of t e subIect< - et er (i>in% or fiction!(< t rou% - ic desire is e:$ressed7 (?!r@er in Wo(freys K ?!@er 75). In its e!r(ier st!%es< it !$$(ied 4reudi!n )et ods in !n!(ysin% eit er t e !ut or or c !r!cters b!sed on - !t -!s re>e!(ed !bout t e) by t e te:t. 5A'Bsyc o!n!(ysis dis$(!ces t e subIect by de$rioritisin% t e ro(e of consciousness !s t e ori%in of $ ysic!( !nd )ent!( be !>iour7 (Le-is 13). It -!s initi!ted by 'r Sigm"nd Fre"d of ,ienn! in t e first !(f of t e t-entiet century. & ere !re current(y !n i)$ressi>e nu)ber of sc oo(s of $syc o!n!(ytic!( criticis)< but - !t t ey !(( !>e in co))on is t !t t ey
find structur!( i)!%es in t e )ind - ic $oint to t e -!y t !t t e $resent is deter)ined by t e $!st in ter)s of t e s"b2ect=s se&"al history. & e be%innin% of t is istory is seen in e>ery c!se !s t e sense of loss t e subIect e:$eriences u$on its se%aration fro) t e )ot er=s body.N 'syc o!n!(ytic t eory brin%s out t e intentional !s$ect of (!n%u!%e t rou% its concentr!tion on t e re(!tions i$ bet-een se:u!(ity !nd soci!( ro(e: t e "nconscio"s !s$ect of utter!nce c!nnot be (eft out< - en< !s c(inic!(

-2

Part One
$r!ctice !s borne out< se:u!(ity is so )uc t e co)$onent of intention. *(( suc utter!nce is concerned -it t e se!rc for re$resent!tions bound u$ -it t e s!tisf!ction of dri!es. & e (iter!ry te:t is ! for) of $ersu!sion - ereby bodies !re s$e!@in% to bodies< not )ere(y )inds s$e!@in% to )inds. (Wri% t 73/< )y e)$ !sis)

+ne of t e )ost se)in!( ter)s $roduced by 4reudi!n $syc o!n!(ysis is dis%lacement< one of t e @ey !cti>ities in>o(>ed in t e tr!nsfor)!tion of (!tent dre!)6t ou% ts into )!nifest dre!)6content (t e ot er is condens!tion). It is t e dre!)6$rocess t !t di>erts !ttention fro) $otenti!((y d!)!%in% )!teri!( suc !s $!infu( )e)ories< fe!rs !nd forbidden desires< - ic !re )!s@ed by t eir !ssoci!tion -it !$$!rent(y uni)$ort!nt sy)bo(s< obIects or situ!tions. *s ?!rry Le-is $oints out< 5AtB e i)$ort!nce of 4reudi!n dis$(!ce)ent to (iter!ture is t !t it encour!%es t e critic!( %!Ee to $enetr!te t e surf!ce of t e te:t !nd (oo@ for t e substr!t! of )e!nin%< unconscious !>oid!nce or refi%ur!tion of content7 (13). & e >!rious st!%es !nd sc oo(s in t e de>e(o$)ent of $syc o!n!(ytic!( criticis) ref(ect t e c !n%in% >ie- of t e dyn!)ics of t e unconscious< !nd ence incite to different @inds of re!din%< b!sed on different ideo(o%ic!( !ssu)$tions. So)e of t ese sc oo(s !re: 1) c(!ssic!( 4reudi!n criticis): it focuses on t e co)$(e: re(!tions bet-een desire !nd fi%ur!tion< - ic )ust needs in>o(>e !n !n!(ysis of tro$es< !n !re! in - ic it o>er(!$s -it (iter!ry studiesG it $ro$oses ! dyn!)ic )ode( of t e $syc e< in - ic t e %leas"re %rinci%le conf(icts -it t e reality %rinci%leG !nd 2) $ost64reudi!n criticis). & is< in its turn< is re$resented by >!rious trends: 2.1) Qun%i!n criticis): t e $erson!( unconscious is t e re$ository of t e re%ressed contents of t e collecti!e "nconscio"s co))on to !(( cu(turesG t e !ct of cre!tion is !n a"tonomo"s com%le& ori%in!tin% in t is unconscious< !nd t e on(y decodin% )et od is - !t Carl 9"sta! 4"ng c!((s am%lification< - ereby i)!%es of t e $erson!( unconscious !re i))edi!te(y e:tended to t ose of t e co((ecti>eG 2.2) e%o6$syc o(o%y: 0orman Holland: $roIects t e 4reudi!n transference !nd co"nter-transference. %ro2ection !nd co"nter-%ro2ection on t e re!der r!t er t !n t e !ut or !nd s o-s o- t e (iter!ry -or@ c !((en%es !nd t en re!ssures t e re!der=s identityG see 0e!der60es$onse t eoryG 2.3) obIect6re(!tions t eory: -elanie Klein. -argaret -ahler. '+,+ ,innicott : t e )ot er is tr!nsfor)ed into $!rts8 5obIects7 (e.%. bre!st< f!ce etc.) t !t !re not differenti!ted fro) ot er obIects in t e outer -or(d t !t t e c i(d re(!tes to< t ou% necess!ri(y distin%uis ed fro) t e subIectG cre!ti>ity ste)s fro) t e desire to )!@e re$!r!tion for t e i)!%in!ry d!)!%e once inf(icted by t e inf!nt in t e t roes of inn!te !%%ressi>e !nd destructi>e i)$u(ses on t e $ri)!( %ood obIect< t e )ot erG 2./) L!c!ni!n criticis): It is s!id t !t t ere !re in f!ct t-o 4reuds: t e 5*)eric!n7 4reud of t e id-ego-s"%erego $syc o!n!(ysis< !nd t e 54renc 7 4reud of se)iotics !nd meta%sychology< t e $recursor of 4ac)"es Lacan+ *s Qi(( ?!r@er su)s u$< 5W ere 4reud de!(t -it t e construction of t e subIect t rou% its

Part One

-"

(!c@s !nd desires< L!c!n e(!bor!tes t e )o)ents - en t !t construction is !n essenti!((y (in%uistic !ct. L!n%u!%e institutes (oss< but it is !(so bot ! res$onse to (oss< !nd !n !tte)$t to seiEe $o-er o>er (oss7 (in Wo(freys K ?!@er 77)G 2.5) Jriste>i!n criticis): 4"lia Kriste!a e:$(!ins ne%!ti>e fi%ur!tions of t e fe)!(e body !nd es$eci!((y of t e )ot er=s body in )!ny cu(tures !s !n !tte)$t to 5ab2ect7 - !t is $ercei>ed !s en%u(fin% !nd t re!tenin%. #ic !e( 0y!n e:$(!ins t !t t e )ot er 5is fi%ured !s t e )!tter !%!inst - ic cu(tur!( sy)bo( for)!tion -or@s. "u(tur!( sy)bo(s dist!nce us fro) t e -or(d by $uttin% ! si%n in t e $(!ce of ! t in%< ! sy)bo( in $(!ce of ! )!teri!( obIect. In t is -!y< t e )ind< es$eci!((y t e )!(e )ind< c!n !bstr!ct fro) !nd $rotect itse(f fro) - !t t re!tens it7 (99). Jriste>! $ro$oses !n !(tern!ti>e re$resent!tion of t e )ot er6c i(d re(!tion !s chora< i.e.< t e )ot er !nd c i(d o(din% !nd co)fortin% e!c ot er< usin% ! $re6 sy)bo(ic< se)iotic )ode of co))unic!tion. 2.3) sc iEo!n!(ysis: 9illes 'ele"6e !nd Feli& 9"attari: desire is not rooted in (!c@< but is un!ccount!b(y $resent fro) t e st!rt !nd it tends to one or t e ot er of t-o $o(es: ! schi6o%hrenic one - ic Odeterritori!(iEes= desire< const!nt(y s iftin% bound!ries< !nd ! %aranoiac one< - ic Oterritori!(iEes=< )!r@in% out cert!in directions for desireG 2.7) $syc o!n!(ytic fe)inist criticis): inf(uenced )!in(y by obIect6re(!tions t eory in 1n%(!nd !nd *)eric!< it $ur$orts to de)onstr!te t !t t e fe)inine< (i@e !ny ot er ter)< is to be re%!rded not !s ! n!tur!( %i>en< but !s ! constructionG etc. & e stron%est of t ese sc oo(s !s been t e L!c!ni!n one. 4ac)"es Lacan co)bines $syc o!n!(ysis -it structur!(ist (in%uistics< but re%!rds e!c si%nifier !s in>ested -it unconscious desire. .ence t e %!$ bet-een t e inner $ri>!te e:$erience of bodi(y need !nd t e outer $ub(ic inter$ret!tion of it. & rou% (!n%u!%e< need is !ddressed to t e Other (ot er subIects in t e si%n syste)) in t e for) of ! de)!nd of !bso(ute (o>e< - ic t e +t er !s not %ot to %i>e. W !t is (eft o>er is un!ssu!%ed desire< desire for reco%nition of t e +t er=s desire. It fo((o-s t !t t ere is no fi:ed )e!nin%< eit er (!tent or )!nifest< - ic subIects c!n re(y on !nd s !re< yet t e te:t const!nt(y (ures t e re!der< )irror6(i@e (!nd !(so (i@e t e i)!%e of t e #ot er)< -it t e $ro)ise of t e - o(eness e (!c@s< !nd entr!$s i) in ! str"ct"re of re%etition. A!!or$ing to Ha!an love !oul$ be $efine$ as the $esire to get from the other (hat
the) !annot give an$ to give (hat the) have no use for. Ha!an also famousl) Fuips 6I thin+ (here I am not therefore I am (here I $o not thin+7 (;!rits 1DJJ8 1--" a pun on that most fun$amental philosophi!al a0iom the .es!artian 6I thin+ therefore I am.7

L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis focuses on t e te:t itse(f !s subIect: t e te:t e>inces (oss< -is es !nd desires - ic !re i)$rinted in (!n%u!%e itse(f< since !bsence !nd desire %ener!te (!n%u!%e (t e -ords st!nd for t !t - ic is !bsent). It tre!ts e>ents in t e n!rr!ti>e !s Osy)$to)s=< !t once Ore!(= (it is not usefu( to t in@ of t e) !s fiction!() !nd )et!$ oric of ! $syc ic structure. It (oo@s for e>!sions<

-/

Part One

!)bi>!(ences< $oints of intensity< $!tterns in t e use of cert!in -ords - ic re>e!( t !t - ic t e te:t !s re$ressed. & e te:t is !(so Law< t e symbolic order of (!n%u!%e< !nd t e )!ster6 si%nifier is t e $ !((us< - i(e t e re!der is !t t e )ercy of (!n%u!%eG !t t e s!)e ti)e< by !ssi%nin% !n unconscious to t e te:t< L!c!n !((o-s t !t t ere -i(( !(-!ys be ga%s in it t !t neit er t e !ut or nor t e re!der -i(( fin!((y be !b(e to fi(( in. 4or L!c!n< t e se(f re)!ins ! fiction t rou% out (ife< !c;uirin% ! $ro>ision!( identity by %i>in% u$ t e ()!tern!() $ !((us. "!str!tion is seen ere !s ! sy)bo(ic e>ent suffered by bot se:es< irres$ecti>e of t eir bio(o%ic!( se:. "urrent(y< $syc o!n!(ytic (iter!ry criticis) focuses on t e -!ys in - ic t e structures of loss. tra"ma !nd desire !re e:$ressed t rou% t e discourse of t e subIect< t us o$enin% u$ t e te:t to co)$(e: meta%horic re!din%s. Qi(( ?!r@er e:$(!ins t e e>o(ution of $syc o!n!(ytic!( criticis) !s fo((o-s: 54reud=s ori%in!( $erce$tions !bout t e $syc e !>e been !(tered t rou% t e contribution of (!ter t in@ers into ! redefinition of t e subIect !s (in%uistic: $eo$(e !re not Iust $roducers of (!n%u!%e< but !re t e)se(>es constructed by t e (in%uistic structures -it in - ic t ey function. ... 4or t e $syc o!n!(ytic (iter!ry critic t e e>ents of t e n!rr!ti>e c!n be re!d !s sym%tomsG t ey !re !t one !nd t e s!)e ti)e Ore!(= -it in t e n!rr!ti>e< !nd )et!$ oric of ! $syc ic structure7 (in Wo(freys K ?!@er 73). S e %oes on to ;uote &erry 1!%(eton=s Literary Theory: 5by reinter$retin% 4reudi!nis) in ter)s of lang"age< ! $re6e)inent(y soci!( !cti>ity< L!c!n $er)its us to e:$(ore t e re(!tions bet-een t e unconscious !nd u)!n society7 (;td. ?!r@er in Wo(freys K ?!@er 73). +t er re$resent!ti>es: .!ro(d ?(oo)< S os !n! 4e()!n< Qo n &. Ir-in< 0obert "on D!>is. Feminism and 9ender St"dies 4e)inist studies !re %ener!((y re%!rded !s !>in% e>o(>ed in t ree $ !ses: 1) !tt!c@ on )!(e se:is)G 2) in>esti%!tion of (iter!ry -or@s for re$resent!tions of -o)enG 3) (iter!ry< critic!(< $syc osoci!( !nd cu(tur!( t eory. In t e 1980s t ere -!s ! fierce conser>!ti>e b!c@(!s fro) outs$o@en !ntife)inist -o)en. "or! J!$(!n s$e!@s !bout t-o )!Ior $ !ses: ! u)!nistic one in t e 1930s !nd 1970s< - ose )!in !c ie>e)ent -!s to re6-rite Western cu(tur!( istory !nd to c !((en%e )!(e u)!nis) by r!isin% t e issue of %enderG !nd ! )uc )ore so$ istic!ted second -!>e in t e 1980s< - ic re%!rds fe)ininity !(tern!ti>e(y !s ! $rec!rious $roduct of $syc ic $rocess or ! soci!( construct or !n effect of (!n%u!%e (i.e.< ! fe)inis) t !t is !(so L!c!ni!n8 $syc o!n!(ytic!(< neo6#!r:ist8 2e- .istoricist< 4ouc!u(di!n< or Derride!n< not to )ention et nic !nd $ost6co(oni!( fe)inis)< etc.). & e )!in $rob(e) is o- to %i>e -o)!n !ccess to discourse: by sub)ittin% to t e $ub(ic (!n%u!%e of $!tri!rc y< or by in>entin% ! $ri>!te (!n%u!%e - ic @ee$s er )!r%in!(iEed !nd8or in>o(>es t e ris@ of )!@in% er sound )ystic!(D 4e)inis)=s undeni!b(e )erit is t e recu$er!tion of ! - o(e tr!dition of -ritin% - ic !d been $re>ious(y ne%(ected !nd !(( but si(enced< !nd t e interro%!tion of recei>ed ide!s of %ender identity.

Part One

-.

0e$resent!ti>es: Qose$ ine Dono>!n (!ddresses t e issue of fe)inine re$resent!tion in )!(e -ritin% !nd u(ti)!te(y of fe)!(e identity)< S!ndr! Hi(bert !nd Sus!n Hub!r< J!te #i((ett< 1(!ine S o-!(terG H!y!tri " !@r!>orty S$i>!@ (fe)inis) W deconstruction W $ostco(oni!(is))< ?!rb!r! Qo nson (fe)inis) W deconstruction)< 2!ncy *r)stron% (neo6#!r:ist W 4ouc!u(di!n)< #!ry 'oo>ey< &oni #orrison< *(ice W!(@er< 1(iE!bet #eese (fe)inis) W re!der6res$onse< c !((en%es tr!dition!( critic!( t eory !s do)in!ted by ! %ender6b!sed 5!ut orit!ti>e co))unity7)< "!t erine ?e(sey< Qudit ?ut(er< etc. (eader-(es%onse Theory&!ii & is t eory !s been $ro)inent fro) t e se>enties on. Its )!Ior !c ie>e)ent is t !t it does !-!y -it t e 5ide!(7 re!der or n!rr!tee of for)!(ist !nd structur!(ist criticis)< focusin% inste!d on t e $syc o(o%y !nd socio(o%y of !n !ctu!( re!der !nd t e -!ys in - ic t ese )odify t e outco)e of t e re!din%. Its )!in re$resent!ti>e< Stanley Fish (b. 1938) !r%ues t !t 5t e )e!nin% of t e $oe) is to be (oc!ted in t e reader3s e&%erience of it<7 !nd t !t 5t e for) of t e $oe) is t e for) of t !t e:$erienceG t e outer or $ ysic!( for)< so obtrusi>e< !nd< in one sense< so undeni!b(y t ere< is< in !not er sense< incident!( !nd e>en irre(e>!nt7 ( -urprised #y -in& The ,eader in '!r!dise Lost, 1937). & us< e reIects t e ide! of t e $ri)!cy of t e te:t< !nd dis)isses t e tr!dition!( for)6content du!(is)< - ic e re$(!ces -it ! )onis) (re!der=s e:$erience M )e!nin% M for))< - ic e!r(ier t e 2e- "ritics !d (!be((ed t e 5!ffecti>e f!((!cy.7 #et odo(o%ic!((y< e $ro$oses ! $ eno)eno(o%y of ti)e< in - ic )e!nin% e:ists on(y !t t e ti)e of t e re!der=s e:$erience< but it is ri%orous(y contro((ed by t e te:t !nd t e !ut or be ind it. & e re!der in 4is =s t eory is !n 5infor)ed re!der<7 ! ybrid bet-een t e ide!( re!der !nd !n !ctu!( (i>in%< c ronoto$ic!((y situ!ted re!der< ! notion - ic 4is re$(!ces in 1973 -it t !t of 5inter%reti!e comm"nities<7 si%n!((in% is s ift to $oststructur!(ist !nd #!r:ist )odes of t in@in% (see 5Inter$retin% t e )ariorum,7 1977< 's There a Te+t in This Class<< 1980). 0orman Holland (b. 1927) focused on t e tr!ns!ctions bet-een te:t !nd re!der< usin% t e findin%s of 5e%o6$syc o(o%y7 to underst!nd t e n!ture of te:t rece$tion. .e $ro$ounded ! )ode( (for - ic e used t e !crony) '#FT C see be(o-) in - ic t e identity (or $erson!(ity) of t e re!der !ffected t e $erce$tion !nd inter$ret!tion of (iter!ture< !nd !r%ued t !t t ere is no suc t in% !s unifor)ity of res$onse or %ood !nd b!d inter$ret!tions: 5inter$ret!tion is ! function of identity7. "on>erse(y< identity re6cre!tes itse(f in t e tr!ns!ction of re!din% in four $ !ses - ic in>o(>e t e re6s !$in% of Defences< 1:$ect!tions< 4!nt!sies< !nd &r!nsfor)!tions (see > ,eaders ,eading< 1975). +t er re$resent!ti>es: &erry 1!%(eton< Qudit 4etter(ey< 'eter 0!bino-itE. & e nineteen se>enties re$resent ! cruci!( turnin% $oint in - !t -!s !(re!dy ! ne- t eoretic!( $!r!di%)< !nd t e rest of t e t-entiet century -!s e;u!((y dyn!)ic. & e !d>ent of structur!(is) in t e (!te 1950s !d )e!nt not on(y ! return fro) e:c(usi>e(y for)!( concerns in (iter!ry studies to ! reconte:tu!(is!tion of

-2

Part One

(iter!ture< but es$eci!((y ! ne- !-!reness of t e syste)ic $!tterns t !t %o>ern bot (!n%u!%e !nd t ou% t. If t e #odernists durin% t e first !(f of t e century !d )ournfu((y $roc(!i)ed 5Hod is de!d C t ere !re no ru(esY7 !nd t en di(i%ent(y $roceeded to recu$er!te in !rt t e (ost sense of order !nd co erence< t eoretici!ns durin% t e (!te 1950s !nd t e 1930s st!rted to )o>e out of !rt !nd into t e re!( -or(d in order to redisco>er its confi%ur!tions< -it in - ic !rt -!s re%!rded !s bein% en%!%ed in ! istoric!( di!(ectic. In t e se>enties so)e of t e fund!)ent!( t eoretic!( te:ts -ere $ub(is ed< !)on% - ic 4redric Q!)eson=s 5#et!co))ent!ry7 (1971) !nd .!yden W ite=s %etahistory (1973)< 0o(!nd ?!rt es= 5& e Structur!(ist *cti>ity7 (tr!ns. 1972)< Q!c;ues Derrid!=s 5Structure< Si%n !nd '(!y in t e Discourse of t e .u)!n Sciences7 (tr!ns. 1972)< Of 2rammatology (tr!ns. 1973)< !nd Writing and Difference (tr!ns. 1978)< to n!)e on(y ! fe-. W!(ter ?enI!)in< Le>i6Str!uss< 0o)!n Q!@obson< 4ouc!u(t< L!c!n !>e e;u!( c(!i)s on *n%(o6*)eric!n t eory !s t eir -or@ is tr!ns(!ted !nd %!ins -ide !nd c!refu( re!ders i$. *t t is ti)e< 0!y)ond Wi((i!)s ( %ar+ism and Literature< 1977) !nd &erry 1!%(eton ( Criticism and 'deology< 1973) s ift fro) (iter!ry criticis) to t eory< !nd so do )!ny ot er sc o(!rs of >!rious $ersu!sions. *t t e s!)e ti)e< t e 2e- "ritics< !nd "(e!nt ?roo@s in $!rticu(!r< continue t eir -or@ t rou% out t !t dec!de !nd -e(( !fter.
Remember! ,an) of the terms !oine$ an$ $eplo)e$ b) these various !riti!s have migrate$ from one tren$ to another espe!iall) in the $ire!tion of !ultural stu$ies. 5u!h is the !ase of subject o$erdetermination dis"lacement 'ther centre an$ decentring et! (hi!h a!!rete $istin!t $efinitions as the) $o so. This migration is s)mptomati! of the poststru!turalist !rossEpollination of i$eas of the late #Gth !entur).

Part One

-,

Lect"re /** Corollary The Lessons of Postmodernism

The Age of APost-Bs ?y t e e!r(y 1980s< t eory is in fu(( s-in% !nd (iter!ry sc o(!rs i$ is infor)ed by ! ne- se(f6consciousness: !(( serious criticis) is ur%ed to turn into )et!co))ent!ry. '!trici! W!u% $oints out t e )ost i)$ort!nt !c ie>e)ent of t is dec!de:
t e ter) A%ostmodernismBNs ifted fro) t e descri$tion of ! r!n%e of !est etic $r!ctices in>o(>in% Cdo"ble-coding3. %layf"l irony. %arody. %arata&is. selfconscio"sness. fragmentation !nd t e mi&ing !nd )es in% of high and %o%"lar c"lt"re< to ! use - ic enco)$!ssed ! )ore %ener!( s ift in t ou% t !nd - ic see)ed to re%ister ! $er>!si>e cynicism to-!rds t e $ro%ressi>ist ide!(s of )odernity. (in Jne((-o(f K 2orris 293< )y e)$ !sis)

& e (!st t-o dec!des of t e century re$resent !n ironic dist!ncin% fro) t e e!r(ier re>ers!( of >!(ues< ! retre!t into radical sce%ticism< -it t e ei% ties !s tr!nsition!( fro) $ost)odernis) to %ostmodernity. Liter!ture is s o-n to $!rtici$!te !n!c ronistic!((y but critic!((y in t e econo)ic !nd de)o%r!$ ic c !n%es of t e nineteent !nd t-entiet centuries. It !(so beco)es $ossib(e for critics to !((o- t eir e:c(usi>e interest in (iter!ture to be re$(!ced by ! dr!stic redefinition of t e conce$t of te&t. In t e nineties t ere is $r!ctic!((y no critic!( re!din% t !t does not en%!%e< e)br!cin%(y or $o(e)ic!((y< -it t e issues of t e t eoretis!tion !nd !c!de)is!tion of (iter!ry studies: t eory turns se(f6ref(ecti>e(y u$on itse(f !nd er!(ds its o-n end.
Q8 'o( is 6te0t7 $efine$ no( in the (a+e of that re$efinition?

& e 70s< 80s !nd 90s !re t e er! of t e 5$ost67: $ost6)odernis)< $ost6 structur!(is)< $ost6#!r:is)< !nd< by t e end of t e 1990s< e>en $ost6 istory< $ost6 $o(itics< $ost6et ics< $ost6t eory !nd $ost6$ost)odernis)< so)e -ou(d c(!i). It is si%nific!nt in t is no)enc(!ture t !t t e n!)e of !n !nterior $ eno)enon is $reser>ed in t e ne- co)$ound nouns< bein% su%%esti>e of re$udi!tion< c rono(o%ic!( succession< !nd return. & e te)$or!( f!ctor )!y be fore%rounded< but it is t e under(yin% re(!tion!( !s$ect t !t is essenti!(: $ost)odernis) defines itse(f in ostensib(e o$$osition to - !t c!)e before< but -it out its reference to )odernis) it -ou(d (!c@ )uc of its o-n e$iste)o(o%ic!( identity. *(t ou% it -ou(d be bot $resu)$tuous !nd !rbitr!ry to c(!i) !ny definiti>e )o)ent for t e be%innin% of t e 5$ost7 $ eno)enon< :>iii it is beyond doubt t !t t ese t ree dec!des re$resent one of t e )ost effer>escent $o(e)ic!( $eriods to d!te. "o)$!rison is t erefore essenti!( to t e definition of $ost)odernis): - ere!s )odernis) decried t e fr!%)ent!tion of $erce$tion< $ost)odernis) ce(ebr!tes itG to e(itist t!ste it o$$oses $o$u(!r cu(tureG to re!der(y te:ts< t e -riter(yG to for)!( e:$eri)ent<

--

Part One

$ouissance !nd $(ot (see 0o(!nd ?!rt es).

e.g. @erem) 'a(thorn $istinguishes bet(een mo$ernism an$ postmo$ernism along the lines of a !ommon feature8 ragmentariness. Thus (hile mo$ernism laments the fragmentation of !ons!iousness an$ pro!ee$s to see+ patterns to reorganise the per!eption of the (orl$ postmo$ernism revels in fragmentation fin$s it liberating en!ouraging pla) paro$) an$ pasti!he (!ite$ in =arr) C%E&".

Q8 <an )ou thin+ of an) Kpatterns or narrative strategies $evise$ b) mo$ernist (riters in or$er to len$ !oheren!e to the fra!ture$ !ontemporar) (orl$? 0i0 Are the) still use$ b) postmo$ern (riters? If )es (hat is the effe!t?

It cou(d be !r%ued t !t t is -!s !(so t e !%e of 5$ost6criticis).7 & ere is ! s ift in interest fro) direct en%!%e)ent -it t e (iter!ry -or@ !s !est etic obIect to t eoretic!((y6inscribed critic!( $ositions. In is Introduction to Contemporary Literary Criticism< D!>is distin%uis es t-o )!Ior directions in t e conte)$or!ry e>!(u!tion of t e re(!tions i$ bet-een (iter!ture !nd criticis). :: & e t-o directions !re $osited !s t e ter)s of t e c(!ssic!( )et!$ oric dy!ds ost6%uest >s. ost6 $!r!site< n!ture6nurture >s. n!ture6n!ture< in - ic t e (iter!ry te:t is t e undis$uted ost8n!ture e(e)ent< - ere!s t e $osition of criticis) is )ore difficu(t to deter)ine. .e refers to t e t-o $!r!di%)s !s t e Age of the Critic !nd t e Age of the (eader. & e for)er is 5stron%(y !@in to e:istenti!(is)< !rc ety$!( inter$ret!tion< !nd J!nti!n !est eticsN!n !%e of Oe:$ert= critic!( str!te%ies for)u(!ted under t e !ut ority of &.S. 1(iot< t e Sout ern 4u%iti>es< I.*. 0ic !rds< !nd 2ort ro$ 4rye<7 insistin% on t e unity !nd - o(eness of t e te:t !s $roduct. & e (!tter !%e is
inf(uenced by 4erdin!nd de S!ussure< #!rtin .eide%%er< "(!ude Le>i6Str!uss< !nd #!urice #er(e!u6'onty. It !s connections -it deconstruction< 0e!der60es$onse criticis)< !nd fe)inis) !nd is under t e stron% s-!y of Q!c;ues Derrid!< Heoffrey .!rt)!n< Q. .i((is #i((er< '!u( de #!n< St!n(ey 4is < Qu(i! Jriste>!< !nd Q!c;ues L!c!n.N A*B $eriod of nons$eci!(iEed re!din% str!te%ies< or Oordin!ry= re!din%<

in - ic criticis) itse(f is !not er %enre !nd t e focus is on t e !cti>ity of re!din% (D!>is 1983: 3). ?y 5nons$eci!(iEed7 D!>is )e!ns t !t t e re!ders= s$eci!(is) is usu!((y not (iter!ture< but $ i(oso$ y< $syc o!n!(ysis< se)iotics< cu(tur!( studies< etc.< !nd t ey brin% ! t orou% !c!de)ic tr!inin% to t e !cti>ity of re!din%. In order to e:$(!in !nd e:e)$(ify t is distinction< D!>is uses t e *br!)s8#i((er deb!te o>er t e $osition of criticis) !is-"-!is (iter!ture. #... *br!)s insists< -it 4r!n@ Jer)ode< on t e e&egetical re(!tions i$< - ereby criticis) is ! second!ry for)!( orderin% of t e (iter!ry te:t< usefu( but e:tern!( to t e re!() of fiction. Q. .i((is #i((er< on t e ot er !nd< $refers to t in@ of t e critic!( te:t !s 5!n indeter)in!te fo(d (or t-ist) in re!din%<7 s(i$$in% 5in !nd out of si% t !s $!rt of t e (iter!ry te:t7 (5) !nd en%!%in% it in ! $er)!nent interte:tu!( di!(o%ue. ?et-een t ese t-o e:tre)es C t e e:e%etic!( !nd t e semiotic-cum-deconstr"cti!e re(!tions C t ere !re t-o )ore $ositions t !t D!>is $oints out. & e first is t e hermene"tic< - ic 5!tte)$ts to disco>er (iter!ry Ofor)= t rou% t e sy)$!t etic !nd i)!%in!ti>e $robin% of ! te:t<

Part One

-+

t e inti)!te interro%!tion of its Ointerior=7 C inf(uenced by Heor%es 'ou(et< H!ston ?!c e(!rd< !nd (!t one ti)e) .i((is #i((er. & e second is t e (eader-(es%onse !$$ro!c < - ic focuses on t e re!der=s !ffecti>e or $syc o(o%ic!( re(!tion to t e te:t !nd 5>er%es on )o>in% out of (iter!ry inter$ret!tion !nd into $syc o(o%y7 (/). *s t e tit(e of t e !nt o(o%y si%n!(s< D!>is -!s referrin% to t e (iter!ry criticis) !nd t eory of t e dec!des i))edi!te(y $re>ious to t e )id6ei% ties. ?enefitin% fro) t e $ri>i(e%es of indsi% t C !nd fro) '!trici! W!u% =s recent c(!ssific!tions C -e c!n no- en(!r%e is fr!)e-or@ to inc(ude t-o ot er co)$re ensi>e rubrics in t e *n%(o6*)eric!n (iter!ry studies of t e second !(f of t e t-entiet century. +ne cont!ins t e u)!nist !>!t!rs of - !t cou(d be c!((ed t e *%e of *est etics< !(t ou% W!u% -ou(d c!(( it t e Age of the =modernist> A"tonomy of cu(ture !nd t e -or(d fro) e!c ot er (in Jne((-o(f K 2orris 29162). & is *%e is c !r!cterised by ! neo6(iber!( !est etics of cu(ture !s t e re$ository of u)!nity=s )ost c eris ed >!(ues (sti(( under t e s$e(( of *ristot(e< #!tt e- *rno(d< !nd 4.0. Le!>is). *t t e o$$osite end of t e s$ectru)< t ere is t e 'ost6& eoretic!( *%e< -it t e sciences !nd $o$ cu(ture t!@in% o>er ! %re!t $!rt of $ i(oso$ ic!( !nd critic!( t in@in%< in ce(ebr!tion of - !t '!trici! W!u% c!((s 5! r!dic!((y ne- !nd %(ob!( $ost6"!rtesi!n O%nostic= consciousness7 (290)< !nd inf(uenced by t eoretici!ns suc !s Qe!n64r!nZois Lyot!rd< St!n(ey 4is < 0ic !rd 0orty< S(!>oI [i\e@< I !b .!ss!n. In W!u% =s no)enc(!ture< t is is t e Age of Aestheticisation< - en t e t ree c(!ssic!( s$ eres of @no-(ed%e !nd e:$erience (!rt< science< !nd )or!(ity or $o(itics) !re turned into te:ts !nd subsu)ed to t e !est etic (29162). & e t-o 5!%es7 described by D!>is fit bet-een< !nd $!rti!((y o>er(!$ -it < t e ones Iust )entioned< not on(y c rono(o%ic!((y< but es$eci!((y e$iste)o(o%ic!((y. In bot t!:ono)ies< t e -ord 5*%e7 (c!$it!(ised) does not necess!ri(y !>e ! te)$or!( connot!tionG r!t er< it refers to epistem=s< )odes of e:$ressin% @no-(ed%e !t ! s$ecific ti)e< t !t bro!d(y succeed one !not er< but !(so o>er(!$ !t t e borders. It is custo)!ry to desi%n!te t e te)$or!( 5!%e7 - ic enco)$!sses !(( t e 5*%es7 )entioned !bo>e !s %ostmodernity C ! i% (y contro>ersi!( $o(yse)!ntic ter) -it >ery f(uid te)$or!( (i)its< !s 0obert ?. 0!y s o-s. 'er !$s )ore !de;u!te(y< in e$iste)o(o%ic!( ter)s t e trend !cco))od!tin% !(( t ese $ositions is %oststr"ct"ralism. Qu(ie 0i>@in !nd #ic !e( 0y!n e:$(!in $oststructur!(is) in re(!tion to ! nu)ber of t eories t !t !re co))on(y inc(uded under t is u)bre((!. *s o$$osed to structur!(is)< $oststructur!(is) uses (in%uistics !s its st!rtin% $oint in de)onstr!tin% not t !t !(( syste)s of si%nific!tion !re %o>erned by t e @ind of order e$ito)ised by (!n%u!%e< but t !t< on t e contr!ry< t ere is !n 5essenti!( ende)ic disorder7 !t t e e!rt of (!n%u!%e itse(f. '!u( de #!n e:$(!ins t is !s t e -or@ of r etoric!( forces -it in (!n%u!%e (5Se)io(o%y !nd 0 etoric7). & is disorder< !ccordin% to $oststructur!(ist t in@in%< is re$(ic!ted 5in t e -or(d t !t c!n ne>er be )!stered by !ny structure or se)!ntic code t !t )i% t !ssi%n it ! )e!nin%7 (0i>@in K 0y!n 33/). W !te>er order or )e!nin% t ere is in t e -or(d< it is su$eri)$osed on it t rou% 5str!te%ies of $o-er !nd soci!( contro(< -!ys of i%norin% re!(ity r!t er t !n underst!ndin% it7 (33/). 'oststructur!(is) t us

+0

Part One

br!nc es out into ! -ide >!riety of r!dic!( critic!( !$$ro!c es< co))itted to e:$osin% t e insidious discursi>e str!te%ies of $o-er in fie(ds !s >!ried !s $ i(oso$ y< istorio%r!$ y< se:u!( $o(itics< !rt< econo)y or intern!tion!( $o(itics.
Remember! This is to a large e0tent a matter of $efinition8 KPostmo$ernism !an refer to an artisti! tren$ (espe!iall) in the 1DJGs an$ CGs espe!iall) in ar!hite!ture an$ literature" a theoreti!al s!hool (represente$ b) @eanE/ran!ois H)otar$ @ean =au$rillar$ Ihab 'assan et!." or the perio$ after the 5e!on$ Worl$ War (in (hi!h !ase it overlaps (ith Kpostmo$ernit)". 5imilarl) Kpoststru!turalism ma) be $efine$ as s)non)mous (ith $e!onstru!tion or as the sum of literar) theories flourishing in the (a+e of stru!turalism.

& e re(e>!nt fe!ture for our discussion is t e in>o(>e)ent -it (eftist $o(itics de>e(o$ed in c!$it!(ist countries. 'oststructur!(is)=s c(!i)s to $o(itic!( re(e>!nce< o-e>er< !re contentious< 0i>@in !nd 0y!n s o-< !nd ! source of intense $o(e)ics -it #!r:ists (35/). .o-e>er< t e -i(( to $o(itic!( in>o(>e)ent !nd socio6cu(tur!( re(e>!nce re)!ins one of t e )!Ior fr!)e-or@s of current t ou% t. We )i% t t erefore s!y t !t t e (!te t-entiet century !nd e!r(y t-enty6first is !n 5!%e7 of $o(itics !nd of ideo(o%ic!( co))it)ents. & is desi%n!tion is su$$orted by t e un$recedented -ides$re!d !-!reness of !nd in>o(>e)ent -it $o(itics t !t !s been induced by t e incre!sin% !ccessibi(ity of t e )!ss )edi!< !s -e(( !s by t e de>e(o$)ent of ! $ost6industri!( ( ence< $ost6c!$it!(ist) econo)y in t e West< in $!r!((e( -it t e de)ise of co))unis) in 1!stern !nd "entr!( 1uro$e. & e coe:istence of differences !t t e end of t e t-entiet century )!@es it )ore usefu( to distin%uis bet-een critic!( trends in ter)s of focus !nd ideo(o%ies r!t er t !n c rono(o%ic!((y< in s$ite of i)$ort!nt te)$or!( turnin% $oints t !t )!r@ ;u!si6$!r!di%)!tic s ifts !nd c !n%es in $riorities. ::i 0i>@in !nd 0y!n !d>!nce ! usefu( y$ot esis !(on% t ese (ines:
We !re not in ! ne- $!r!di%). 0!t er< t ere !re no $!r!di%)s or )ode(s of @no-(ed%e t !t st!nd !$!rt fro) t e -or(d !nd outside t e $(!y of its )o>e)ents (re$etition< difference< s$!cin%< ener%etics< !%onistics !nd !nt!%onis)< !est etics or fi%ur!tion< etc.). We !re si)$(y in t e -or(d -e !>e !(-!ys been in -it out @no-in% it< -it out bein% !b(e to @no- it bec!use -e -ere $reoccu$ied -it one )o>e (co%nition in (!n%u!%e) -it in t !t -or(d !nd bec!use t e -or(d so)e o-< e>en t ou% -e c!n describe it fro) -it in (t e $(!net!riu) of @no-(ed%e)< c!nnot be @no-n (su))ed u$ in identit!ri!n c!te%ories t !t st!nd outside< etc.). It c!n on(y be (i>ed in @no-in%(y. (355)

& e t-o sc o(!rs int !t t e fund!)ent!( $oststructur!(ist t esis !ccordin% to - ic - !t needs to be reconsidered is t e >ery definition of @no-(ed%e in re(!tion to t e -or(d !nd t e @no-in% subIect. In t is sense< $oststructur!(is) )!r@s not ! bre!@ -it < but ! return to t e roots of (!n%u!%e< re!son< identity< etc. fro) inside t e discursi>e $r!ctices t ey !>e been couc ed in< in order to e:$ose t e !ssu)$tions !nd str!te%ies t !t !>e conditioned t eir definitions. It is for t ese

Part One

+1

re!sons t !t I %rou$ t e critics e:!)ined in t e second $!rt of t is boo@ in ter)s of t e (often e:tr!6(iter!ry) e$iste)o(o%ic!( reference $oints to - ic t ey !>e turned !nd returned: t e %r!nd n!rr!ti>es of istory !nd society< t e -ritin%8-ritten subIect< t e te:t !nd its re!din% subIect. Postmodernism and *ts 'iscontents 0e%!rd(ess t e end(ess >!riety of t eoretic!( $ositions !>!i(!b(e to conte)$or!ry critics !t t e be%innin% of t e t-enty6first century< t ere see)s to be ! consensus concernin% t e f!ct t !t bot re!din% !nd -ritin% !re conditioned by t e e>o(ution of %aradigmatic dominants< to use $rian -cHale=s ter). 'o"we Fo55ema=s for)u(!tion of t e %eriod code of )odernis)< !s cited by #c.!(e< $ro>es e($fu( in identifyin% )odernist fiction in contr!distinction to (!ter tendencies:
Nt e co)$osition!( !nd synt!ctic!( con>entions of t e )odernist code inc(ude te:tu!( indefiniteness or inco)$(eteness< e$iste)o(o%ic!( doubt< )et!(in%u!( s@e$ticis)< !nd res$ect for t e idiosyncr!sies of t e re!der. Its se)!ntic !s$ects !re or%!nised !round issues of e$iste)o(o%ic!( doubt !nd )et!(in%u!( se(f6ref(ection. (8)

#c.!(e t erefore s$e!@s !bout 5t e do)in!nt7 (in ! s(i% t(y )odified Q!@obsoni!n sense) of )odernis) !s e%istemological< t !t is< $reoccu$ied -it ;uestions t !t fore%round t e (i)its of @no-(ed%e (9).
Q: What is the $ifferen!e bet(een Kmo$ernism an$ Kmo$ernit)? 00ii

& e conte:t in - ic #c.!(e e:$(!ins t e functionin% of t is $eriod code is contr!sti>e !nd retros$ecti>e< fro) t e >!nt!%e $oint of %ostmodernism. & is !$$ro!c !s t e !d>!nt!%e of out(inin% not on(y t e do)in!nt of ! $!rticu(!r $!r!di%) but !(so its tr!Iectory< its de$!rture fro) t e code< t e )!r%in for inno>!tion. +n t e s!)e >ie-< t e do)in!nt of $ost)odern fiction is ontological. & us< t e re!din% of ! no>e( 5!s !n e:!)$(e of >erb!( !rt7 (i.e.< ! for)!(ist inter$ret!tion) -i(( yie(d 5its !est etic function7 !s its do)in!nt< - ere!s 5!s ! docu)ent of ! $!rticu(!r )o)ent in cu(tur!( istory7 (i.e.< ! istoricist !$$ro!c )< t e s!)e boo@ -i(( s o- itse(f to be 5do)in!ted by its $eriod=s do)in!nt7 (3). "on>erse(y< ! )odernist -riter )i% t !>e been concerned -it e$iste)o(o%ic!( (co%niti>e) ;uestions of t e ty$e< 5.o- do I @no- t e -or(dD7 !nd 5W !t is to be done -it t !t @no-(ed%eD<7 - ere!s is $ost)odern re!ders !re tor)ented by onto(o%ic!( ($ost6co%niti>e) ;uestions suc !s 5W ic -or(d is t isD7 !nd 5W !t is ! -or(dD7 (see #c.!(e 9611). +r r!t er< 5W !t is ! -or(d< t !t it c!nnot be definedD7 ?ot t e for)s of fiction !nd t e in>esti%!ti>e instru)ents of t e critic conse;uent(y e>o(>e -it t e s ift in do)in!nts. In si)i(!r $oetic ter)s< 4ean-Francois Lyotard !ssesses )odernis) !nd $ost)odernis) co)$!r!ti>e(y !s t-o $ossib(e aesthetics of the s"blime. In is ce(ebr!ted 5*ns-erin% t e Ruestion: W !t Is 'ost)odernis)D7 (1983)< t e sub(i)e is defined !s - !t c!n be concei>ed e>en t ou% t ere c!n be no $resent!tion of

+2

Part One )odernis) !nd

it< eit er in re!(ity or in i)!%in!tion. *(on% t ese (ines< bot $ost)odernis) e)er%e !s se(f6ref(ecti>e< but in different -!ys:

)odern !est etic is !n !est etic of t e sub(i)e< t ou% ! nost!(%ic one. It !((o-s t e un$resent!b(e to be $ut for-!rd on(y !s t e )issin% contentsG but t e for)< bec!use of its reco%niE!b(e consistency< continues to offer to t e re!der or >ie-er )!tter for so(!ce !nd $(e!sure. Fet t ese senti)ents do not constitute t e re!( sub(i)e senti)ent< - ic is in !n intrinsic co)bin!tion of $(e!sure !nd $!in: t e $(e!sure t !t re!son s ou(d e:ceed !(( $resent!tion< t e $!in t !t i)!%in!tion or sensibi(ity s ou(d not be e;u!( to t e conce$t. & e $ost)odern -ou(d be t !t - ic < in t e )odern< $uts for-!rd t e un$resent!b(e in $resent!tion itse(fG t !t - ic denies itse(f t e so(!ce of %ood for)s< t e consensus of ! t!ste - ic -ou(d )!@e it $ossib(e to s !re co((ecti>e(y t e nost!(%i! for t e un!tt!in!b(eG t !t - ic se!rc es for ne- $resent!tions< not in order to enIoy t e) but in order to i)$!rt ! stron%er sense of t e un$resent!b(e. * $ost)odern !rtist is in t e $osition of ! $ i(oso$ er: t e te:t e -rites< t e -or@ e $roduces !re not in $rinci$(e %o>erned by $reest!b(is ed ru(es< !nd t ey c!nnot be Iud%ed !ccordin% to ! deter)inin% Iud%)ent< by !$$(yin% f!)i(i!r c!te%ories to t e te:t or to t e -or@. & ose ru(es !nd c!te%ories !re - !t t e -or@ of !rt itse(f is (oo@in% for. & e !rtist !nd t e -riter< t en< !re -or@in% -it out ru(es in order to for)u(!te t e ru(es of - !t 1ill ha!e #een done. .ence t e f!ct t !t -or@ !nd te:t !>e t e c !r!cters of !n e!entG ence !(so< t ey !(-!ys co)e too (!te for t eir !ut or< or< - !t !)ounts to t e s!)e t in%< t eir bein% $ut into -or@< t eir re!(iE!tion A mise en oeu!reB !(-!ys be%ins too soon. Post modern -ou(d !>e to be understood !ccordin% to t e $!r!do: of t e future ApostB !nterior AmodoB. (in Doc erty 1993: /563)

& is co)$(e: e:$(!n!tion constructed !round t e !$$!rent $!r!do: !t t e e!rt of t e >ery n!)e of t e $!r!di%) is e>identi!( of t e en!b(in% $otenti!(s of r!dic!( doubt< free$(!y< !nd indeter)in!cy. & e L!tin modo Ai.e.< no-< of t e )o)entB is bot $receded (in t e )!teri!( concretis!tion of t e ter)) !nd (eft be ind ((e:ic!((y) by t e $refi:< in ! t rust for-!rd t !t (iber!tes bot !rtist !nd re!der fro) t e ri%ors of (re)$resent!tion !nd $us es to t e fore t e %ener!ti>e !nd !n!c ronic ((iter!((y< !%!inst ti)e) n!ture of !rt. & e $ost6co%niti>e self-refle&i!ity. relati!ity !nd indeterminacy of $ost)odernis) !>e been )!%isteri!((y t eorised by Qe!n64r!ncois Lyot!rd< I !b .!ss!n< '!trici! W!u% < ?ri!n #c.!(e< Lind! .utc eon< !nd )!ny ot ers< es$eci!((y in t e nineteen se>enties !nd ei% ties. & eir roots !re !s fir)(y $(!nted in t e sciences (es$eci!((y ;u!ntu) $ ysics !nd re(!ti>ity t eory) !s in Derride!n deconstructi>e $ i(oso$ y< 4ouc!u(di!n $ i(oso$ y of istory< !nd t e e)er%in% )edi! !nd cu(tur!( studies. In t e !bsence of e$iste)o(o%ic!( cert!inties< $ost)odern )!n ce(ebr!tes t e o$$ortunity to $(!y -it 5f(o!tin% si%nifiers7 !nd centres t !t 5c!nnot o(d.7 & e onto(o%ic!( bound!ries bet-een $ i(oso$ y (or t eory) !nd !rt >!nis < !s do t ose bet-een (iter!ture !s @no-(ed%e !nd (iter!ture !s e:$erience. .o-e>er< t ere is ! )ountin% sense to-!rds t e end of t e t-entiet century t !t< des$ite t e in>enti>eness of !(( t e ne- t eories !>!i(!b(e in t e -!@e of structur!(is)< t eir usu!( end $roduct is aporia< be!utifu((y defined by D!>id 0ic ter !s 5t e inte((ectu!( >erti%o c!used by (oo@in% into !n !$$!rent(y end(ess !(( of

Part One

+"

)irrors7 (823). & !t is to s!y< t eory (!nd es$eci!((y deconstruction) !s %ener!ted )et odic!((y $ursued !nd $ i(oso$ ic!((y so$ istic!ted re$etition< !nd f!i(ed to !de;u!te(y e:$(!in or de!( -it t e crises of t e $ost)odern -or(d. In - !t fo((o-s I intend to d-e(( on t e co)$(ic!tions of $ost)odern t eory !t t e turn of t e century. I !b .!ss!n !nd '!trici! W!u% < !)on% ot ers< $ro$ose ! return to u)!nis) !s t e -!y out of t e e$iste)o(o%ic!( aporias !nd )et odo(o%ic!( re(!ti>is) t !t !>e )!rred recent critic!( t in@in%. +t ers ("!t erine ?e(sey< & o)!s Doc erty) si)$(y !d>oc!te re!din%. In ! $!$er de(i>ered in 1999< I !b .!ss!n confessed -it ende!rin% $uEE(e)ent !nd sincerity: 5I i)!%ine t !t I !>e been in>ited to t is conference on t e $re)ise t !t I @no- so)et in% !bout %ostmodernism. & is is ! terrib(e )is!$$re ension: !fter -ritin% !bout $ost)odernis) for t irty ye!rs< I @no- (ess !bout it no- t !n I did t en7 (2002: 1). *nd yet e $roceeds to !tte)$t ! definition. .e in f!ct co)es u$ -it se>er!( definitions: 5$ost)odernis) see)s ! contested si%nifier f(o!tin% in ! fie(d of y$e7 (1) ( y$e M e:cessi>e $ub(icity !nd t e ensuin% co))otion)G 5t e e;ui>oc!( !utobio%r!$ y of !n !%e< ! )ode of co((ecti>e< so)eti)es c !otic< so)eti)es )oc@in%< se(f6ref(ection7 (2)G 5! continu!( e:ercise in se(f6definition7 (2)G 5! cu(tur!( !nd !rtistic $ eno)enon7 - ose 5)ercuri!( c !r!cter7 -!s subsu)ed by is o-n e!r(ier neo(o%is) 5 *ndetermanence7 (5indeterminacies7 W 5immanences7) (2)G !n !%e of r!dic!( s$iritu!( $ri>!tions (1)< 5!n !rid (!nd -e !(( need to tr!>erse7 (17). .!ss!n discerns ! deterior!tion of $ost)odernis) in t e inter>!( since is first en%!%e)ent -it it in t e 1930s:
cu(tur!( $ost)odernis) !s )ut!ted into %enocid!( %ostmodernity (?osni!< Joso>o< 9(ster< 0-!nd!< " ec ny!< Jurdist!n< Sud!n< *f% !nist!n< &ibetN so %oes t e b!(efu( (it!ny of our ti)e). ?ut cu(tur!( $ost)odernis) itse(f !s )et!st!siEed into steri(e< c!)$y< @itsc y< Io@ey< de!d6end %!)es or s eer )edi! y$e. (/)::iii

In ot er -ords< before t e turn of t e century t e b!tt(e cry of t e 1970s !nd 80s -!s under%oin% ! se>ere crisis t !t )!de ob>ious t e s$(it bet-een cu(tur!( trends !nd t e s$irit of t e !%e. .!ss!n o$es t !t -riters )i% t te!c t e $ost)odern )!n ! >ery i)$ort!nt )or!( (esson in - !t e c!((s 5 enosis7 C defined e(se- ere< !s ere< !s 5se(f6 e)$tyin%< yes< but !(so t e se(f6undoin% of our @no-(ed%e in t e n!)e ofN0e!(ity7 (.!ss!n 2003: 9). & rou% t e !rid (!nd of $ost)odern $ri>!tions< -riters (i@e Wi((i!) 4!u(@ner 5)!y $ro>e our %uide7: t ey in !bit ! 5different< ! ric er< )or!( uni>erse<7 .!ss!n s!ys< 5!nd not )or!( on(y< but !(so ric (y s$iritu!(. & e cru: of t is s$iritu!(ity is se(f6e)$tyin%< t e terrib(e cour!%e of renunci!tion C ! O$iercin% ,irtue<= !s 1)i(y Dic@inson $ut it7 (2002: 17). .e t en ;u!(ifies t e -!y in - ic t is enosis tr!nscends ti)e bound!ries:
It )o>es< $!st r etoric or t eo(o%y< to-!rd !bsence (Derrid!)G it touc es ni i(is) (2ietEsc e)G it @no-s t e infinite $(!y of irony !s of resi%n!tion (Jier@e%!!rd). In s ort< it in>o@es t e ne%!ti>e conditions of ! $ost)odern s$iritu!(ity< 1ithout disc(!i)in% tr!nscendence< 1ithout re$udi!tin% t e conte:ts of >!(ues fro) - ic At e -riter=sB

+/

Part One
(!n%u!%e deri>es its d!r@er< distincti>e ener%ies. (17618)

In s ort< .!ss!n=s so(ution to t e $ri>!tions of t e $ost)odern< or e>en $ost6 $ost)odern !%e< !)ounts to t e neo6 u)!nist 5se(f6dis$ossession7 !nd recu$er!tion of 5 u)!n essences7 ( ere .!ss!n ;uotes S!u( ?e((o-=s dec(!r!tion re%!rdin% t e $ro>ince of t e storyte((er !nd no>e(ist< 18). It is ! ;uest for -isdo) - ic st!rts in se(f6@no-(ed%e< !n !tte)$t to recu$er!te t e uni>ers!(s t !t be%ins -it t e indi>idu!( but renounces t e subIecti>e. It !(so renounces t e !rro%!nce of gnosis !nd e)br!ces Qo n Je!ts=s 5ne%!ti>e c!$!bi(ity.7 .!ss!n=s re$e!ted st!te)ents re%!rdin% t is crisis of $ost)odernity be% to be contr!sted -it t e erudite et ics of t e $ost)odern !%e !s $ortr!yed< !(f6ton%ue6 in6c ee@< by '!trici! W!u% to-!rds t e end of !n ess!y on $ost)odernis):
& e $r!%)!tist so(ution At !t is< radical indeterminacyB offered by $ost)odernis) is usefu( bec!use it circu)>ents (!r%er ;uestions !bout )ind !nd )ore s$ecific $rob(e)s !bout t e n!ture of critic!( @no-(ed%e or t e $ossibi(ity of ! 5>!(idity in inter$ret!tion7 - ic -ou(d not be t e outco)e of ! reducti>e scientis). If -e c!nnot est!b(is t e %rounds for be(ie>in% one inter$ret!tion to be )ore 5true7 t !n !not er< t en -e c!n c(!i) t !t t e te:t is si)$(y )ore usefu( for one set of $ur$oses t !n !not er !nd t en $ursue ! 5str!te%ic7 re!din% ($o(itic!(< )or!(< soci!( etc.). We )!y t en si)$(y Iud%e t e te:t in ter)s of o- -e(( it does t is Iob t !t -e !s@ of it< !nd t ereby e:c(ude t e issue of - et er it is !$$ro$ri!te in t e first $(!ce to de)!nd of it t is $!rticu(!r function. & e $osition is su))ed u$ in St!n(ey 4is =s c(!i) t !t 5inter$ret!tion is not t e !rt of construin% but t e !rt of constructin%. Inter$reters do not decode $oe)sG t ey )!@e t e).7 Jno-(ed%e is !n !rt of in>ention !nd not ! science of disco>ery. (in Jne((-o(f K 2orris 30/)::i>

W!u% =s re$resent!tion of $ost)odern et ics s o-c!ses one of t e )!in %rounds on - ic $ost)odernis) !nd $oststructur!(is) !>e been criti;ued< n!)e(y t eir !>oid!nce str!te%ies t !t $er)it t e) to aestheticise< or te&t"alise< t e conte)$or!ry -or(d C i.e.< tre!t it !s if it -ere ! te:t< inter$ret it C r!t er t !n confront its socio6$o(itic!( !nd e$iste)o(o%ic!( $rob(e)s. W!u% notes t !t re(!ti>is) !s !d t e stron%est i)$!ct $recise(y - ere resist!nce to it s ou(d !>e been )ost !d!)!nt< in #!r:ist criticis): t e s$ ere of et ics< !fter !((< tr!ns(!tes in t e )odern -or(d into t !t of $o(itics. ::> & e resu(t is t !t - ere #!r:is) s ou(d !>e been re>o(ution!ry !nd !sserted t e ri% ts of t e marginal< t ere is no- ! sense t !t t e )!r%in!( is not )ore defensib(e t !n t e normati!e: t eir c(!i)s !re e;u!((y re(!ti>e. & e $oint is -e(( t!@en: - i(e on t e one !nd $ost)odernis) $roc(!i)s t e in!$$ro$ri!teness of be(ie>in% in subIecti>ity< on t e ot er it !s in>ented ne-< subt(er for)s of subIecti>ity t !t< - i(e -or@in% -it in t e c(ose confines of ! s$ecific discourse< sti(( )!n!%e to e:$ress $erson!( $references< interests< !nd !%end!s. In t e rhetoric of $ost)odernity< t ese ne- ty$es of subIecti>ity !re c!((ed 5a"thenticity.7 *nd t e )ost b!ff(in% !s$ect of $ost)odernis) is $recise(y its !tte)$t to co>er o>er its inconsistencies -it t e b(!n@et of indeter)in!cy !nd $(!y< !s if t ese cou(d Iustify $o(itic!( irres$onsibi(ity. ?y c(!i)in% t !t e>eryt in% is disco"rse< it o$es t !t t e $rob(e)s of t e -or(d -i(( %o !-!y !s soon !s t ey

Part One !re !rticu(!ted.

+.

Q18 What is the sense in (hi!h I use$ the term Krhetori! here? Remember Paul $e ,ans use of the term? <ompare these t(o a!!eptations (ith the !lassi!al one. Q28 'o( $oes ,i!hel /ou!ault $efine K$is!ourse? What an$ (ho are the Kinitiators of $is!ursive pra!ti!es?

Disi((usioned -it t is st!te of !ff!irs< W!u% st!tes t !t 5t e critic!( i)$er!ti>e no-< for (iter!ry $r!ctitioners< $ i(oso$ ers !nd $o(itic!( t eorists< )ust be t !t -e (e!rn fro) t e (essons of $ost)odernis) o- to find ! -!y out of t e $ost)odern condition7 (305). S e< too< su%%ests ! $otenti!( so(ution:
A'ost)odernis)=sB $!rticu(!r e$iste)o(o%ic!( $roIectN !s re!c ed ! de!d6end !nd t ere is (itt(e $oint !ny (on%er in s uff(in% !)on%st t e re)!ins. & e e:it fro) $ost)odernis) for (iter!ry criticis) (ies so)e- ere in t !t e:c(uded )idd(e bet-een t e conce$ts of !utono)y !nd !est eticis!tion< science !nd !rtN. It (ies< in ot er -ords< in our c!$!city to continue stru%%(in% to-!rd t e discri)in!tion of t ese orders -it out !do$tin% eit er ! n!T>e !est eticis) or !n i)$eri!(istic scientis)G it (ies in our reco%nition of t e need to $reser>e so)e distinction bet-een intention!( !nd n!tur!( obIectsG !nd in ! continued resist!nce to t e seducti>e te)$t!tion si)$(y to subsu)e one into t e ot er. (305)

& e %o(den )idd(e t !t c!n @ee$ bot t e )odernist !utono)y !nd t e $ost)odern !est eticis!tion in b!(!nce !%!in !dds u$ to ! for) of neo6 u)!nis) t !t !s (e!rned t e (essons of $ost)odernity. In (iter!ry studies< D!nie( Sc -!rtE $(e!ds e>en )ore e:$(icit(y for ! return to ! ne- u)!nistic for)!(is) !s t e )ost co)$re ensi>e for) of (iter!ry criticis) (313)< !nd so do )!ny ot ers. Is t en neo6 u)!nis) t e so(utionD In t is our $ost6$ost)odern !%e< do -e need to turn b!c@ !nd st!rt o>erD W !t does t !t te(( us !bout $ost)odernis)D & !t -e te)$or!ri(y str!yed fro) t e ri% t $!t !nd t !t -e s ou(d no- (e!rn fro) our errorsD +r t !t -e !>e t!@en ! necess!ry detour t rou% r!dic!( re(!ti>ity< ! fie(d tri$ to e:$(ore t e (!nd of non6cert!inty< !nd !re re!dy no- to return to t e )!in ro!dD The Taming of Theory *ccordin% to 1>!n "!rton !nd Her!(d Hr!ff< t e t-o !ut ors of t e c !$ter on criticis) in The Cam#ridge History of American Literature, >o(. 8< t ese const!nt reinter$ret!tions of t e ro(e !nd definition of (iter!ture co)e to s o- t !t 5-or@s of (iter!ture !re !ren!s in - ic co))unities define t e)se(>es !nd co)$etin% >!(ues !nd se(f6i)!%es !re ne%oti!ted. It is in t is sense t !t (iter!ture is dee$(y $o(itic!(7 (271). & e t-o co))ent!tors %o on:
If t ere is ! unifyin% e(e)ent in t e dis$!r!te critic!( t eories !d>!nced since t e )id6 1930s< o-e>er< it is t eir !r%u)ent t !t no te:t is e>er e:$erienced e:ce$t t rou% so)e inter$ret!tion of it< t rou% t e se(ection of !$$ro$ri!te or%!niEin% $rinci$(es< do)in!nt e)$ !ses< !nd re(e>!nt conte:ts t !t constitute te:tu!( )e!nin%. (27/) Remember?

+2

Part One

=rian ,!'ale $es!ribes the role of his 6perio$ !o$es73 6para$igmati! $ominants7 along the same lines.

& e !cts of se(ection< in t eir turn< !re cu(tur!((y $redeter)ined C !nd so is in f!ct t e !)ount of !ttention t !t t e -or@ recei>es C t rou% >ery subt(e de>ices contro((ed by institutions< fro) uni>ersity to !d>ertisers !nd $riEe co))ittees. & e e)er%ence of (iter!ry t eory is conse;uent(y e:$(!ined in t e fo((o-in% ter)s:
& e con>iction t !t t e )e!nin%s of (iter!ry te:ts !re !(-!ys )edi!ted by t e critic!( (enses t rou% - ic t ey !re >ie-ed< !nd t !t neit er (iter!ture nor criticis) c!n st!nd free of ideo(o%y !nd contro>ersy< !s forced conte)$or!ry critics to beco)e )ore ref(e:i>e !bout t eir o-n $rocedures !nd !ssu)$tions. (277)

*s t e consensus re%!rdin% notions suc Ore!din%= !s -e!@ened<

!s O(iter!ture<= O(iter!ry c!nons<= !nd

essenti!( definitions !nd functions !>e beco)e obIects of deb!te !nd t us !>e been Ot eoriEed.= & e condition of Odissens"s= AS!c>!n ?erco>itc =s ter)B !s forced e>en t e )ost tr!dition!(ist (iter!ry critics to s$e(( out e:$(icit(y - !t cou(d once !>e been (eft uns!id< t ereby re>e!(in% tr!dition!( !r%u)ent to be no (ess Ot eoretic!(= t !n !ny ot er. (278< )y e)$ !sis)

Liter!ry I!r%on !s co)e into e:istence )uc in t e s!)e -!y: ne- (!n%u!%e ()et!(!n%u!%e) -!s needed to e:$(!in - !t before -!s t!@en for %r!nted. *ccordin% to "!rton !nd Hr!ff< 5t e f!u(t of conte)$or!ry criticis) (ies not in its use of I!r%on but in its f!i(ure to tr!ns(!te !nd e:$(!in it !de;u!te(y. Suc tr!ns(!tion !nd e:$(!n!tion is beco)in% es$eci!((y ur%ent !s t is criticis) co)es incre!sin%(y under $ub(ic !tt!c@7 (280). Let us t en define ! fe- @ey ter)s< be%innin% -it reading. *(t ou% it is current(y e)$(oyed to denote critic!( inter$ret!tion of ! (iter!ry te:t< I -ou(d (i@e noto consider it in ! )ore b!sic !nd !t t e s!)e ti)e %ener!( sense< t !t of deci$ erin% t e si%ns on t e $!%e !nd of !tt!c in% )e!nin% to t e). 0e!din% is tr!dition!((y construed in Western cu(tures !s e)!nci$!toryG it constitutes us !s citiEens !nd in>ites our $!rtici$!tion in cu(ture !nd ci>i(is!tion. 0ecent(y< critics suc !s I !b .!ss!n< & o)!s Doc erty< !nd "!t erine ?e(sey !>e co)e to ce(ebr!te re!din% !s !n undert!@in% t !t !s t e $otenti!( to re>e!( so)et in% fund!)ent!( to u)!n n!ture< ! cu(tur!( !cti>ity - ose si%nific!nce %oes beyond t e )!@in% of c oices !bout ! )e!( in ! rest!ur!nt< !nd e>en beyond t e recu$er!tion of $re>ious(y )!r%in!(iEed cu(tures. In t e subt(e di!(o%ue est!b(is ed bet-een te:t !nd re!der< in t e ;uestions t ey !s@ of e!c ot er !nd t e e:$ect!tions t ey for) !nd frustr!te< t ere is )e!nin%. 0e!din% is in erent(y Iustified !s (on% !s it does not !ssu)e !ny $ro%r!))!tic !nd $r!%)!tic !%end!< but re)!ins in;uisiti>e !nd< !bo>e !((< co)$!r!ti>e. ?e(sey !ssoci!tes t is )e!nin% -it t !t !tt!c ed by 4reud to t e !cti>ity of -ritin%< on t e one !nd< !nd< on t e ot er< to t e tr!nsferenti!( re(!tions i$ of $syc o!n!(ysis. Doc erty $ro$oses ! ty$e of critic!( re!din% t !t 5is ! )!tter of

Part One

+,

enterin% t e re!() of e$iste)o(o%ic!( uncert!inty< !n e:ercise in ne%!ti>e c!$!bi(ity<7 ! re!din% - ic 5is but !not er -ord for t in@in%< for ! t in@in% t !t is ! u)b(e not6@no-in%G !nd to d-e(( in suc consciousness is to see@ !n identity t !t )ust !(-!ys e(ude us< t ereby )!@in% us const!nt(y differ fro) ourse(>es< const!nt(y %ro-G !nd t e -ord for t is is cu(ture7 (13). It is ere< in t is undecid!bi(ity< e continues< t !t -e find it $ossib(e to re!d (17). It is ere< one )i% t !dd< t !t -e find it $ossib(e to t in@. In is !rtic(e interro%!tin% - !t (ies 5beyond $ost)odernis)<7 I !b .!ss!n su%%ests t !t re!din% (iter!ture is< !nd en!b(es< re!din% t e -or(d. .is r etoric is one of trust< res$onsibi(ity< trut < !nd u)i(ity. #oreo>er< in !n e!r(ier !rtic(e< e s!(utes t e b(urrin% of t e distinction bet-een (iter!ture !s e:$erience !nd (iter!ture !s @no-(ed%e (1993: 1/) !nd e:$oses t e in!de;u!cy !nd $re6e)$ti>e n!ture of t eories !nd ideo(o%ies !s )odes of t in@in% (/65< 9 etc.). Q!c;ues Derrid! s$e!@s !bout (e!rnin% to (i>e (!not er for) of t in@in%) !s t!@in% $(!ce in t e s!)e s$!ce bet-een $resence !nd !bsence: (e!rnin% fro) t e se(f t !t is not in (ife< in t e $resence of t e de!d (etters t !t !re unde!d (199/: :>iii). & e in !bitin% of t is undecid!bi(ity !)ounts to !n et ics beyond )or!(ity< Iustice< or duty. *(t ou% fro) >ery different $ositions< !(( t ese t in@ers de)!nd ! reconsider!tion of t e fund!)ent!( conce$ts -it - ic $ i(oso$ ic!( !nd critic!( t in@in% o$er!tes !t t e end of t e t-entiet century !nd t e be%innin% of t e ne:t. Derrid! !d>oc!tes t e !c@no-(ed%e)ent of bo"ndaries !s constituti>e of !(( @ey conce$ts in Western $ i(oso$ y< $o(itics !nd cu(ture. & !t is to s!y< no conce$t e>er )!@es sense in a#stractoG !(( definitions )ust t!@e into !ccount t e concrete circu)st!nces to - ic t !t conce$t !$$(ies. 9sin% (!n%u!%e unref(ecti>e(y< e $(e!ds< $er$etu!tes !nd iter!tes ! body of nor)!ti>e !ssu)$tions of - ic -e )!y not e>en be !-!re. 4or .!ss!n< t e -ounds of $ost)odernity (!nd t ey !re )!ny !nd dee$) c!n on(y be e!(ed t rou% ! fiduci!ry re!(is)< !n !est etics of trust t !t st!rts -it enosis. W !t t e t-o t in@ers !>e in co))on< t en< is t e be(ief t !t it is not di!(o%ue t !t -i(( so(>e t e conf(icts of t e $ost)odern -or(d (!s Lyot!rd !nd ?erco>itc !d be(ie>ed)< but ! t orou% reconsider!tion of one=s o-n @no-(ed%e !nd o$er!tion!( instru)ents. It is 5@no-(ed%e7 itse(f< !(on%side t e !>enues by - ic -e !rri>e !t it< t !t )ust be interro%!ted !nd u(ti)!te(y disc!rded (-it out< o-e>er< bein% discredited) if -e !re to o$en ourse(>es to t e re!(< to be 5 os$it!b(e78 5!ttenti>e7 to t e ot er (Derrid! in ?orr!dori 129630< !nd .!ss!n 2003: 8< res$ecti>e(y). & ere !re !t (e!st t-o $oints !t - ic !(( t ese te:ts )eet. & e first is t e o$enin% u$ of critic!( t in@in% to undiscri)in!tin% re!din% t !t ;uestions $re>ious t eoretic!( !nd )et odo(o%ic!( !ssu)$tions. & e second is t e trust in t e u)!nities !nd )ore s$ecific!((y in re!din% !s t e $oint fro) - ic t e re>ision of !ttitudes !nd !ssu)$tions c!n be%in. .!ss!n reco%nises t !t 5Liter!ry t eory !s no- beco)e ! cynosure of t e u)!nitiesG criticis) !s beco)e ! $!r!di%) of t e inte((ectu!( (ife7 (1993: 13). Derrid!< - ose orient!tion is $ i(oso$ ic!( !nd< es$eci!((y to-!rds t e end of is (ife< et ic!(< is sti(( de>oted to t e $r!ctice of re!din%< - et er it is #!r:=s "o))unist #!nifesto or S !@es$e!re=s Hamlet. & e

+-

Part One

e$iste)o(o%ic!( se$!r!tion of t e s$ eres is no (on%er ten!b(e !nd $er !$s not e>en desir!b(e< but t e connections bet-een t e) need redefinition. I !) ob(iter!tin% t e differences bet-een t e t-o sc o(!rs< of course< but it is instructi>e to consider t eir recent -or@ interte:tu!((y since t ey !ddress >ery si)i(!r issues< !(t ou% fro) different >!nt!%es. *fter !((< Derrid!=s %re!test i)$!ct !s !(-!ys been in (iter!ry studies< - i(e .!ss!n=s 5!est etics of trust7 is essenti!((y ! $ i(oso$ ic!( construct< e>en t ou% e identifies its !>!t!rs in t e !rts !nd (iter!ture !s -e(( !s $ i(oso$ y !nd science. #ore to t e $oint< t ey bot see) de>oted to ! critic!( recu$er!tion of t e .u)!nist tr!dition of inte((ectu!( curiosity< !nd< t ou% not in so )!ny -ords< so is Doc erty. Let us !t t is $oint !tte)$t ! definition of t !t - ic )ust be in>o@ed !nd e:orcised ere: ideology.::>i It is ! )u(tifunction!(< $o(yse)ic ter)< - ose definitions >!ry fro) ! syste) of inter$reti>e $rinci$(es t !t ref(ect ! cert!in -or(d >ie- (i.e.< ! t eory)< to !n insidious )ec !nis) t !t infuses !(( fie(ds of !cti>ity !nd is @e$t in )otion by t e socio6$o(itic!( do)in!nt in order to $reser>e t e status 5uo $o-er distribution. *t its )ost dr!stic< t e definition of ideo(o%y c(!i)s t !t epistem=s !nd discursi>e $r!ctices !re ideo(o%ic!((y conditioned !nd turned into )ec !nis)s t !t %ener!te !nd Iustify t e need for $o-er6enforce)ent. In !(( t ese !cce$t!tions ideo(o%y infor)s critic!( t in@in% !nd deter)ines its conc(usions by )e!ns of fore%roundin% ! nu)ber of ;uestions !nd issues !nd $ositin% t e) !s centr!( to t e current cu(tur!( $!r!di%). .ence< t e ine>it!bi(ity of en%!%in% critic!((y -it ideo(o%y. We !re in !bited by ideo(o%y Iust !s -e in !bit ideo(o%ic!((y6circu)scribed cu(tur!( s$!ces. & e ;uestion is< !s !(-!ys since t e 1n(i% ten)ent< to - !t ! de%ree do -e %!in contro( o>er t e e:tern!( (i.e.< ideo(o%ic!() forces t !t -ou(d ot er-ise contro( usD It is ! ;uestion of freedo) to t e s!)e e:tent to - ic it is !(so ! ;uestion of res$onsibi(ity< of $o(itics< !nd< i)$(icit(y< of et ics. *ccordin% to Louis *(t usser !nd 4redric Q!)eson< ideo(o%y is t e indi>idu!(=s imaginary re(!tions i$ to tr!ns$erson!( entities suc !s t e soci!( structure< $o-er dyn!)ics< t e co((ecti>e (o%ic of istory< etc. *s -e !>e seen< t rou% out t e t-entiet century< under t e inf(uence of #!r:ist di!(ectics !nd istoricist re!din%s of cu(ture< but es$eci!((y -it t e e)er%ence of (in%uistics !s ! found!tion!( disci$(ine< t e >erb!( n!ture of bot ideo(o%ies !nd istories co)es under scrutiny. 0!dic!( criti;ue !nd redefinition of t e 5 grand narrati!es7 of &rut < .istory< #or!(ity< !nd "!nonicity< !(on% -it t e crossin% of disci$(in!ry bound!ries< !re t e t-o )ost i)$ort!nt conse;uences of t e ne- !-!reness of t e infor)!ti>e $o-er of ideo(o%y. & e e:tinction of !bso(utes is sy)$to)!tic of t e $ost)odern )ood of r!dic!( criti;ue !nd sce$ticis)< en!b(in% t e current )u(ti$(icity of >!(id inter$reti>e $ers$ecti>es. In itse(f< t is interro%!tion of $!tern!(ist !ssu)$tions $ro>ed to be ! $ro(ific !nd beneficent $roIect< - ose r!)ific!tions re>o(utionised $ i(oso$ ic!( !nd cu(tur!( t ou% t. Fet - i(e count(ess inter$reti>e $ossibi(ities !re o$ened u$< t e istoric!( !nd $o(itic!( under$innin%s of ideo(o%y !(so %ener!te t e need to circu)scribe< $rescribe !nd coerce. & e re(!tions i$ bet-een t e (iter!ry -or@ !nd its cu(tur!( !nd ideo(o%ic!(

Part One

++

conte:ts !s t erefore co)e to be inter$reted in !t (e!st t-o -!ys< eit er !s ref(ection of< or !s resist!nce to< t ose conte:ts. * nu)ber of ;uestions de>o(>e fro) t ese res$ecti>e inter$ret!tions: in t e first c!se< - !t is t e >!(ue !nd ro(e of (iter!tureD *nd in t e second< if t e te:t is confined to t e (!n%u!%e of t e e:istin% soci!( order< o- c!n it !rticu(!te ! resist!nce to t !t orderD *s Don!(d J!rti%!ner $oints out<
&o concei>e of t e te:t !s c!$!b(e of c !((en%in% t e (i)its of its (!n%u!%e su%%ests !n e(itist st!nce: ! )ystific!tion of t e (iter!ry te:t !nd ! 2e- "ritic!( eroiE!tion of t e !ut or. & ere is !(so t e $rob(e) of t e re!der of suc ! te:t. Hi>en t e i))ersion in ideo(o%y of e>ery )e)ber of t e society< if ! te:t could so)e o- s$e!@ beyond its o-n soci!((y deri>ed (!n%u!%e< - o but ! re!der !s re>o(ution!ry (!nd !s eroic) !s t e -riter cou(d re!d itD (in J!rti%!ner K *b!die :ii)

It fo((o-s fro) t ese ;uestions t !t bot >ie-s of t e (iter!ry te:t C !s ref(ection or !s c !((en%e C cont!in in t e)se(>es t e seed of t eir o-n criti;ue. & ese distinctions $ut into $ers$ecti>e t e (iberties t!@en by so)e critics -it c rono(o%y !nd conte:t. W en Iustified !(on% t e (ines of gnoseological relati!ism< !n!c ronistic !$$ro!c es !re %ener!((y re%!rded !s ! defensib(e $osition. 'ost)odernis) itse(f is by definition 5! ne- !nd $rob(e)!tic!( $ !se in - ic ! %ood )!ny it erto -e((6est!b(is ed >!(ues< )et ods !nd be(iefs !re encefort o$en to ;uestion<7 in (iter!ry t eory !s -e(( !s istory< t e n!tur!( sciences etc. (2orris in Jne((-o(f K 2orris /11). +n t e one !nd< t e current r etoric of dis%uise< (!tent content< !nd t e sus$icion of t e f!i(ure of $re>ious critics to co)$(ete(y (!y b!re t e de>ices !>e brou% t !bout t e de)ystific!tion of indsi% t. +n t e ot er< re(!ti>ity t eory< t e uncert!inty $rinci$(e< t e co)$(e)ent!rity y$ot esis< t e !-!reness of t e )et!$ oric!( be!rin% on scientific (!n%u!%e< !(( indic!te t !t our )!$s of re!(ity ref(ect our re(!ti>e $osition or e:$eri)ent!( )et ods r!t er t !n de(i>er !bso(ute trut or s o- t e ro!d to $ro%ress. It is in t e nic e o$ened u$ by t is sort of e$iste)o(o%ic!( !nd onto(o%ic!( doubt t !t neo6 u)!nis) see@s to insert itse(f.

100

Part One

2otes:

Part Two Three #ssays

The (et"rn to History
History is something unpleasant that happens to other people: (*rno(d &oynbee)

So)e of t e recent !>!t!rs of t e con>er%ence of te:t !nd conte:t -i(( )!@e t e obIect of t e $resent ess!y. I focus in $!rticu(!r on conce$tu!( series suc !s istory6ideo(o%y6)yt < ideo(o%y6(!n%u!%e6@no-(ed%e< istory6n!rr!ti>e6et ics< !nd fiction6consciousness6ideo(o%y. #y -or@in% $re)ise is t !t t e )ost se)in!( conIunction of (iter!ry !nd istoric!( studies is re$resented by t e !c@no-(ed%e6 )ent of t e ideo(o%ic!( conditionin% of t e )ediu) in - ic bot (iter!ture !nd istorio%r!$ y e:ist C i.e.< (!n%u!%e. I t erefore contend< (i@e '!u( de #!n< t !t t e $ro$er $reoccu$!tion of istoricist re!din%s of fiction is -it t e subt(e soci!( !nd cu(tur!( )ec !nis)s t !t !>e con%e!(ed (!n%u!%e into cert!in $!tterns of )e!nin%. L!te t-entiet 6century istoricist re!din%s !tte)$t to !ns-er ! nu)ber of ;uestions t !t cou(d be %rou$ed< by !nd (!r%e< into t ree $!irs: 1) .o- did istoric!( circu)st!nces s !$e t e (ife !nd )ind of t e !ut or< !nd conse;uent(y is tre!t)ent of c !r!ctersD *nd o- did istoric!( circu)st!nces -it in t e no>e( s !$e t e (i>es of t e c !r!ctersD 2) W !t definitions of istory !nd ideo(o%y e)er%e fro) t e te:tD *nd - !t definitions e)er%e fro) )y inter$ret!tion of t e te:tD 3) W !t does ! 2e- .istoricist re!din% of ! (iter!ry te:t !dd to t e underst!ndin% of t e te:tD *nd - !t does it !dd to t e underst!ndin% of istoryD *(( t ree %rou$s c!n be subsu)ed to t-o (!r%er issues: ideo(o%y=s e)beddedness in (!n%u!%e< !nd istory=s $resentness on(y t rou% n!rr!ti>e re$resent!tion. I !r%ue t !t !(( t ese ;uestions !re e;u!((y centr!( to ! se(f6conscious istoricist re!din%< -it t e c!>e!t t !t t e (!st one in $!rticu(!r is (e%iti)!te in (iter!ry criticis) strict(y in conIunction -it its $!ir in %rou$ t ree. I !(so $ro$ose t !t istoricist re!din%s of (iter!ture !re $!rticu(!r(y se(f6critic!( due to t e !-!reness of t e i% $o(itic!( st!@es t !t t ey !(-!ys in>o(>e !nd en%!%e -it < ::>ii but !(so C $er !$s es$eci!((y C bec!use of t e reco%nition of t e (in%uistic n!ture of istory !nd ideo(o%y t e)se(>es. * criti;ue of suc re!din%s< t erefore< c!n on(y be undert!@en fro) inside t e discursi>e $r!ctices t !t $ro)$ted it. In ! istory6)!@in% boo@ on istory !nd n!rr!ti>e entit(ed Politics of Postmodernism< Lind! .utc eon r!ises t e cruci!( ;uestion< 5W ose istory %ets to(dD7 & e !ns-er to er ;uestion !i(s b!c@ to J!r( #!r:=s sus$icion t !t t e e>ents of t e $!st !s -e co)e to @no- t e) !re ne>er ;uite Obrute<= t !t t ey re!c

102

Part T1o

us t rou% t e )edi!tion of t e do)in!nt c(!ss< - o )!@e t e) !>!i(!b(e< t rou% !n !ct of ideo(o%ic!( inter$ret!tion< in t e for) of - !t -e re%!rd !s istoric!( f!ct< t e istoric!( d!t! $ro>ided by istory boo@s. In 0o)!ni! -e !>e !d first !nd e:$erience of t !t distortion of istoric!( f!ct C -itness t e need< !fter t e 0e>o(ution of 1989< for ! re6-ritin% of istory boo@s< !nd ence t e !(tern!ti>e sc oo( te:tboo@s< te(e>ised deb!tes< t e re>ision of istoric!( fi()s< etc. ?ot .utc eon=s ;uestion !nd &oynbee=s f!cetious definition ;uoted in )y e$i%r!$ $oint to t e constructedness of istory. *-!reness of t e !rtifici!(ity of !(( suc O%r!nd n!rr!ti>es= !s been t e !(()!r@ of (!te6t-entiet 6century t in@in% !bout t e n!ture of Ore!(ity= !s t e di!(ectics of Of!cts= !nd O@no-(ed%e.= It !s !(so incited (iter!ry critics to ! reconsider!tion of @ey conce$ts suc !s istory< )yt < !nd ideo(o%y in t eir i)bric!tion -it (iter!ture. & e return to istory in (iter!ry !nd cu(tur!( studies< t en< is to !n e;u!( e:tent ! return to ideo(o%y. .istory !nd ideo(o%y !>e beco)e so ti% t(y connected t !t it is i)$ossib(e to discuss t e) se$!r!te(y or est!b(is c rono(o%ic!( $recedence. In f!ct< one of t e )ost strenuous(y e(d tenets of suc re!din%s is t !t istory !nd ideo(o%y !>e co)e into e:istence si)u(t!neous(y !nd !re )utu!((y infor)!ti>e. ?efore t e) t ere -!s on(y )yt . *)eric! is r!t er !n e:ce$tion!( c!se< in - ose istory )yt is conte)$or!neous -it ideo(o%yG in - ic < in f!ct< )yt cou(d be s!id to be synony)ous -it ideo(o%y. ::>iii & e reco%nition of t is e;ui>!(ence in t e -!@e of t e disci$(inis!tion of (iter!ry studies brin%s !bout t e co((!$se of t e se$!r!tion of !rt fro) $o(itics !nd t e conse;uent e)er%ence of ne- inter$reti>e )et ods< e!c !>in% its o-n t eoretic!( !nd ter)ino(o%ic!( !$$!r!tus to e:$(!in !nd Iustify its inter$reti>e $r!ctices C i.e.< t e rise of ne- t eories. In S!c>!n ?erco>itc =s ter)s< it (e!ds to ! critic!( dissensus - ic !s t e $otenti!( for bein% turned to %ood !ccount (1983: 107). In 1973 #yr! Qe (en -rote: 5It is c(e!r t !t !bso(ute obIecti>ity is no )ore !>!i(!b(e t !n its !ntit esis. +ne -!y to >ie- cre!ti>e t in@in%< t erefore< is !s >ision @eyed by ! $rinci$(e of inter$ret!tion. W en it !ddresses itse(f to o- $eo$(e (i>e in %rou$s< t is or%!nisin% $rinci$(e !)ounts to !n ideo(o%ic!( synt!:7 (15613). Qe (en=s re)!r@ re%!rdin% t e e:tinction of !bso(utes is sy)$to)!tic of t e $ost)odern )ood of r!dic!( criti;ue !nd sce$ticis)< su%%estin% t e current )u(ti$(icity of >!(id inter$reti>e $ers$ecti>es. In ! bro!der sense< t is is t e >ery )e!nin% of ideo(o%ies: co erent -or(d6>ie-s< o$$osed but not )utu!((y e:c(usi>e< - ic i)$ose cert!in 5$rinci$(es of inter$ret!tion7 on t e !ssess)ents !nd Iud%e)ents t !t c!n be )!de -it in t e confines of t eir res$ecti>e discursi>e $r!ctices. Qe (en=s is ! st!nd - ic $ri>i(e%es obIecti>ity< but insists t !t obIecti>ity itse(f is ine>it!b(y ideo(o%ic!((y infor)ed. Ideo(o%y ere !s ! )ore s$ecific !cce$t!tion - ic in>o(>es $o(itic!( !nd soci!( constrictions C 5! $ro%r!))!tic n!rro-6)indedness<7 !s ?erco>itc $uts it. It is ideo(o%y !s 5! c(osed !nd e:c(usi>e syste) of ide!s< usu!((y de>e(o$ed in o$$osition to !(tern!ti>e e:$(!n!tions< !nd )i(it!nt(y co))itted to $!rti!(ity< in t e doub(e sense of t e ter)< !s bi!s (or s$eci!( interest) !nd !s fr!%)ent!tion7 (?erco>itc 1983: 103). In t is c!se ideo(o%y co)es c(oser to Hr!)sci=s 5 e%e)ony.7

Part T1o

10"

Ideo(o%y in bot t ese senses c!n be found !t -or@ in cre!ti>e !nd critic!( t in@in% !(i@e< but it is usu!((y str!te%ic!((y de$(oyed in criticis). In (iber!(< !nd e>en so)e f!ctions of (eftist< t ou% t< cre!ti>e -ritin% !t its best is re%!rded !s ! for) of soci!( criti;ue< e>en - i(e it is ine>it!b(y s !$ed by t e cu(ture in - ic it is $roduced. Louis *(t usser< o-e>er< concedes 5re(!ti>e !utono)y7 to !rt< - ic is deter)ined by econo)ic re(!tions on(y 5in t e (!st inst!nce.7 #ost ot er (e>e(s< t e subIecti>e inc(uded< !re contro((ed< disci$(ined or inter$e((!ted by t e do)in!nt ideo(o%ic!( discourse in >ery subt(e !nd dis$ersed -!ys - ic t e indi>idu!( f!i(s to reco%nise !s e:tern!( to one=s o-n t in@in%. Ideo(o%y t us !)ounts not so )uc to ! syste) of 5ru(in% ide!s<7 !s to !n !rr!y of 5$rocesses of cu(tur!( si%nific!tion !nd $erson!( for)!tion7 - ic constitute t e u)!n subIect !s t ey de)!nd is 5unconscious7 obedience (0i>@in K 0y!n 237). *s *(t usser f!)ous(y $ut it in ! subtit(e< 5Ideo(o%y is ! O0e$resent!tion= of t e I)!%in!ry 0e(!tions i$ of Indi>idu!(s to t eir 0e!( "onditions of 1:istence7 (in 0i>@in K 0y!n 29/). Qe (en=s $ro%r!))!tic inIunction !$t(y $rescribes t e critic!( $rotoco( to be undert!@en by conte)$or!ry #!r:ist critics: t e first ste$ in inter$retin% ! (iter!ry -or@ is to deci$ er t e !ut or=s ideo(o%ic!( $ersu!sion or< !(tern!ti>e(y< t e te:t=s. & e d!n%er -it suc !n !$$ro!c is t !t< if t e ideo(o%y of t e -riter8 te:t does not coincide -it t !t of t e critic< t e (!tter )i% t eit er )isre!d t e synt!: or su))!ri(y dis)iss t e -or@ !s unre!(istic< $reIudiced< n!rro-6)inded< !nd !(to%et er of no (iter!ry -ort . & is ty$e of !$$ro!c is !n i((ustr!tion of t e 5stron% cont!in)ent7 $o(icies ty$ic!( of ideo(o%ic!( co))it)ent in 1!st6 !nd "entr!(6 1uro$e!n criticis) before 1989< but !(so in *)eric!n #!r:ist (iter!ry studies. & is is !n indic!tion of t e -!y in - ic t e definition of ideo(o%y in co))unist countries differs fro) t e ones )entioned !bo>e. *s Q. .i((is #i((er econo)ic!((y e:$(!ins< in t eir c!se 5Oideo(o%y= is (or -!s) ! set of be(iefs !nd $r!ctices conscious(y $ro)u(%!ted by t e st!te7 (25/). & e connection bet-een ideo(o%y !nd et ics in 1!stern 1uro$e under t e co))unist re%i)es is t erefore ! >ery tenuous one. * si%nific!nt $!rt of t is definition of ideo(o%y consists in t e f!ct t !t t e $ossession of trut is de(e%!ted to ! i% er !ut ority (t e St!te)< - ic is t us e)$o-ered to )!@e decisions consistent -it - !t is 5best for t e $eo$(e7 (! $ro%r!))!tic!((y uto$i!n t-ist %i>en to t e uti(it!ri!n 5t e %re!ter %ood for t e %re!ter nu)bers7). & us< co))unis) bec!)e for )!ny of its subIects< to ! (!r%e de%ree< ! -!y of e>!din% res$onsibi(ity. ::i: In bein% $ro%r!))!tic!((y $rescribed by t e do)in!nt $o(itic!( c(!ss< t is ty$e of ideo(o%y )ore e>ident(y co)es to be!r u$on t e definition !nd et ics of inter$ret!tions !nd c!nons< !nd conse;uent(y on t e res$onsibi(ity of t eoretici!ns !nd critics !(i@e in inscribin% !nd circu)scribin% t e re!din% $ub(ic=s underst!ndin% of !nd res$onses to cu(tur!( $ eno)en!. It does not< o-e>er< e:c(ude t e diffusion of ideo(o%y into t e institutions< )ent!(ities !nd be !>iour!( !uto)!tis)s of ci>i( society< !s t eorised by *(t usser !nd Hr!)sciG ;uite t e o$$osite. ?ut to t e e:tent t !t !cti>e resist!nce to t is ty$e of ideo(o%y is fe!sib(e< it !(so in>o(>es $otenti!((y d!n%erous (e>en suicid!() o$en rebe((ion !%!inst t e $o(itic!( syste)< !s -e no doubt !(( re)e)ber. & us< - en neit er obIecti>ity (bec!use of bi!s) nor subIecti>ity (bec!use of

10/

Part T1o

t e fr!%)ent!tion of t e re!din% co))unity !nd t e constructedness of t e re!din% subIect) c!n be in>o@ed !ny (on%er !s defensib(e $ers$ecti>es< ideo(o%ic!( 5$rinci$(es of inter$ret!tion7 !re brou% t into t e discussion to $re>ent )et odo(o%ic!( re(!ti>is) fro) runnin% r!)$!nt C !s -e(( !s to $re6e)$t !ccus!tions of !rbitr!riness. & !t is< !fter !((< t e ro(e of t eory in disci$(inised (iter!ry studies< !s described by .!yden W ite: 5to $ro>ide Iustific!tion of ! st!nce !is-"-!is t e )!teri!(s bein% de!(t -it t !t c!n render it $(!usib(e. Indeed< t e function of t eory is to Iustify ! notion of $(!usibi(ity itse(f7 (in D!>is 1983: 157). Wit suc i% st!@es< $rofession!( et ics !nd se(f6ref(e:i>ity beco)e )ost $ertinent issues in connection -it criticis) !nd t eory -it ! socio6$o(itic!( !%end!. & e !)bi>!(ence of istoric!( re!din%s of (iter!ture ste)s fro) t e be(ief t !t (iter!ry studies c!n !dd si%nific!nt(y to t e underst!ndin% of istory !s ! syste) of c!us!(ity (in W!(ter ?enI!)in=s -ords< (eft6-in% ideo(o%y $o(iticises !rt). & ey !(so !>e t e !d>!nt!%e of (iber!tin% criticis) fro) tr!dition!( st!nd!rds of c!nonicity !nd con>ention in f!>our of criteri! of Ore(e>!nce.= "on>erse(y< t ere is )uc criti;ue of istoricis)=s )!r%in!(is!tion of for)!( !nd subIecti>e consider!tions - ic )i% t be re%!rded !s co)in% under t e incidence of ot er discursi>e )et ods. #ic e( 4ouc!u(t !s !d ! cruci!( contribution to-!rds t e e(ucid!tion of t e re(!tions i$ bet-een -or(d !nd (!n%u!%e< structures of $o-er !nd n!rr!ti>e for)s. .e discusses istory !s t e su) of 5discursi>e $r!ctices7 C i.e.< 5- !t it is $ossib(e to s!y in one er! !s o$$osed to !not er7 (D!>is 1983: 103) C !nd ! se;uence of 5epistem=s7 C 5not ! )ode of t ou% t t !t c !r!cteriEes !n !%e (!s in t e Oo(d= istoricis))< but t e discursi>e (i)its of - !t c!n be t ou% t or Odiscursi>iEed= !t !ny $!rticu(!r )o)ent7 (D!>is K Sc (eifer 212). +n t is >ie-< '!u( .!)i(ton ec oes 4ouc!u(t in $ointin% out t !t t e criti;ue of istoricis)< too< necess!ri(y beco)es istoricist< 5one - ic istoricises t e istoricisers7 (in Jne((-o(f K 2orris 17). "riti;ue itse(f )ust !>e recourse to istoricist tro$es in order to bui(d u$ its o-n discourse. *s ! resu(t of t is insi% t< istory !s co)e in recent dec!des to be re%!rded !s eit er ! s$ecies of (!n%u!%e (.!ns 0obert Q!uss< .!ns Heor% H!d!)er< 1u%ene ,!nce)< ! $oo( of di!(o%ised< $otenti!((y $o(itic!((y effecti>e discourses (Heor% Lu@!cs< 0!y)ond Wi((i!)s)< or ! n!rr!ti>e )!r@ed by ! series of ine:$(ic!b(e %!$s !nd ru$tures r!t er t !n by continuities -it in !nd bet-een epistem=s (#ic e( 4ouc!u(t< .!yden W ite). It is ! set of -!ys of @no-in% t e -or(d< or successi>e for)s of discourse< - ose ori%ins< t en< !re e(se- ere (in ideo(o%y< )ent!(ities< (!n%u!%e< t e (iter!ry tr!dition etc.). *s D!>is e:$(!ins< istory is
5t in@in% t e +t er<7 ! se;uenti!( e(!bor!tion of t e (!cun!e in e:$erience. 4ouc!u(t c!utioned t !t t ese %!$s in istory !re not (!cun!e 5t !t )ust be fi((ed.7 .e s!id t !t t ey !re 5not in% )ore< !nd not in% (ess< t !n t e unfo(din% of ! s$!ce in - ic it is once )ore $ossib(e to t in@.7 4und!)ent!((y< t en< istory is ! continu!( rene-!( of t e %rids for t in@in% !nd constitutes !n e$iste)o(o%ic!( $osture (! -!y of @no-in% C !n 5e$iste)e7) to-!rd t e -or(d< !nd t is definition of istory o(ds true for t e istories -e -rite !s -e(( !s for t e i))edi!te sense -e !>e of istory !s re!(ity. (1983: 103)

Part T1o

10.

& us< t e tr!dition!( ier!rc y of istory o>er (iter!ture bre!@s do-n !s t e %r!nd n!rr!ti>e of O.istory= is de)yt o(o%ised !nd re$(!ced by O istories= C Otrue= !nd Ofiction!(.= & is ne- st!tus of istory !s encour!%ed (iter!ry critics to (oo@ beyond for)!(ist !est etics in order to re!d (iter!ture in t e conte:t of $o-er re(!tions !nd $r!ctices. .i$$o(yte &!ine=s uti(it!ri!n >ie- of (iter!ture in istory is t us bot recu$er!ted !nd re>ersed: (iter!ture indeed b!res t e de>ices of< - i(e it !(so dr!)!tises< e:istence in t e -or(d. & is tension ent!i(s t e !b!ndon)ent of t e t-in be(ief in istory !s ! %noseo(o%ic!( disci$(ine !nd in !rt !s mimesis (i.e. direct i)it!tion of e>ents in t e -or(d) !nd t e ob(iter!tion of t e onto(o%ic!( bound!ry bet-een t e t-o res$ecti>e ty$es of te:ts. * second conse;uence of t e reinter$ret!tion of istory is t e f!ct t !t t e #!r:ist o$$osition bet-een b!se !nd su$erstructure is disc!rded. .!yden W ite $in$oints t e )o)ent of tr!nsition: 5in Q!)eson=s refor)u(!tion of t e ?!se6 Su$erstructur!( re(!tions i$< cu(ture is to be >ie-ed (ess !s ! reflection of t e )odes of $roduction t !n !s si)$(y !not er !s$ect of t ese )odes7 (in D!>is 1983: 155). .ence t e istoricist insistence on t e (iter!ry !rtef!ct !s O-or@= r!t er t !n Ote:t= (157) C bot in t e sense of t e fin!( $roduct !nd of t e concrete< soci!((y6i)bedded $rocess of $roduction. .ence< !(so< t e dee$ se(f6consciousness !nd sense of res$onsibi(ity t !t $er>!des t e -or@ of t e )ost i)$ort!nt (iter!ry istoricists. *s 0obert "on D!>is $oints out< )ost istoricists 5s !re ! stron% sense of istory !s !n !cti>ity t !t dee$(y in>o(>es t e critic< so t !t t e critic c!nnot st!nd !$!rt fro) t e te:t bein% re!d !nd inter$reted but c!n on(y c oose to reco%niEe is or er o-n effect on t e te:t7 (1983: 107). & e editors of The Cam#ridge History of Literary Criticism < >o(. 9< $ostu(!te t !t t e %re!test c !((en%e t !t t eory !s !d to f!ce in t e -!@e of 4renc structur!(is) !s been contest!tion of !ny %rounds for ! 5confident !$$e!( to )!tters of trut !nd istoric!( f!ct.7 & e co))on deno)in!tor of !(( (!te6t-entiet 6 century t eoretic!( !$$ro!c es
is t eir co))it)ent to one or !not er for) of t e (in%uistic discursi>e or te:tu!( Oturn= t !t !s !(so been ! $ro)inent fe!ture of ort odo: !c!de)ic disci$(ines< not (e!st $ i(oso$ y !nd istorio%r!$ y. W ere t ey c ief(y differ is in t e e:tent to - ic t ey sti(( find roo) for so)e residu!( notion of istoric!( trut be ind t e ot er-ise infinite $(!y of te:tu!( si%nific!tions< or o- f!r t ey -ou(d endorse 4redric Q!)eson=s c(!i) t !t istory is !n Ountr!nscend!b(e oriEon= - ic -i(( !(-!ys in t e end $(!ce (i)its on t e sco$e for suc for)s of te:tu!(ist (icence. (Jne((-o(f K 2orris 162)

& e roots of t is )!Ior turn< (i@e t ose of Q!)eson=s inf(uenti!( t eory< !re to be sou% t in t e conIunction of 4or)!(ist ce(ebr!tion of for)< (!te S!rtre!n e:istenti!( $ eno)eno(o%y< 4ouc!u(di!n $ost6structur!(is)< 4reudi!n !nd L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis< Derride!n deconstruction< !nd neo6#!r:is). *t t e s!)e ti)e< recent de>e(o$)ents in !(( t ese fie(ds of en;uiry< e>en t e ostensib(y ! istoric!( !nd !to$ic!( deconstruction< c(!i) istoricist credenti!(s (see .!)i(ton in Jne((-o(f K 2orris 19). #oreo>er< istoricist criticis) br!nc es out into ! - o(e r!n%e of conti%uous disci$(ines< fro) fe)inis) to $ost6co(oni!(is)< !nd fro) $ost6 co))unist to *fric!n6*)eric!n studies !nd studies of ot er )!r%in!( or )i%r!nt

102

Part T1o

cu(tures.::: & is intense cross6ferti(is!tion is !t t e e!rt of !(( conte)$or!ry (iter!ry studies. * fe- distinctions )ust be dr!-n ere. & e first !s to do -it ! confusion t !t see)s to !>e t!@en o>er )y !ccount of t e 5return to istory7: t !t bet-een istoric!(8 istoricist criticis) !nd #!r:is). .!yden W ite=s 5Hettin% +ut of .istory7 $ro>es e($fu(: 5&!@e t e >ision out of #!r:is) !nd !(( you -i(( !>e (eft is ! ti)id istoricis) of t e @ind f!>oured by (iber!(s !nd t e @ind of !cco))od!tionist $o(itics - ic uti(it!ri!ns identify !s t e essence of $o(itics itse(f7 (in D!>is 1983: 1/7). In ot er -ords< t e @ind of istoricis) t !t is !$$ro$ri!te for t e interro%!tion of t e (!-s t !t %o>ern t e dyn!)ics of istory< !nd i)$(icit(y of (iter!ture !s its n!rr!ti>ised e:$ression< )ust incor$or!te #!r:is)=s 5$o-er to ins$ire ! !isionary $o(itics.7 * istoricist i)se(f< W ite ere !$$ro$ri!tes t e $osition of Q!)eson=s 5#et!co))ent!ry7 - ic !d occ!sioned t e -ritin% of is o-n ess!y< !nd insists t !t #!r:is) is not< nor e>er -!s intended to be< 5)ere(y ! reacti!e soci!( $ i(oso$ y.7 0!t er< it is ! for) of uto$i!nis) - ic c!n $!rtici$!te in t e better)ent of t e u)!n (ot t rou% ! t orou% underst!ndin% of istory (1/7). In 5& e 'o(itics of .istoric!( Inter$ret!tion: Disci$(ine !nd De6Sub(i)!tion7 (1987)< ! te:t t !t is $er !$s )ore con%eni!((y W ite!n< t e sc o(!r dr!-s !not er i)$ort!nt distinction: t !t bet-een t e #!r:ist soci!( uto$i!nis) !nd t e f!ct t !t !s ! $ i(oso$ y of istory #!r:is) is not )ore >ision!ry t !n its bour%eois counter$!rt. & e re!son< !ccordin% to W ite< is t !t #!r:ist studies< too< !)ount to ! 5disci$(inis!tion7 of istory b!sed on t e .e%e(i!n r!tion!(is!tion of istoric!( $rocess !t t e e:$ense of t e re$ression of t e istoric!( sub(i)e or !ffecti>e8 !est etic )oti>!tion !s described by Sc i((er (see W ite in 0ic ter 1303611). In The Political 6nconscious (1981)< 4redric Q!)eson corrobor!tes t is -it ! second i)$ort!nt distinction: t !t bet-een #!r:is) !nd 2e- .istoricis). & e for)er is b!sed u$on t e !ssu)$tion t !t econo)ics or $o(itic!( econo)y deter)ines< in t e (!st inst!nce< bot $o(itic!( $o-er !nd cu(tur!( $roduction. 2e.istoricis)< on t e ot er !nd< re(e%!tes t e econo)ic to ! 5second!ry !nd nondeter)in!nt $osition bene!t t e ne- do)in!nt of $o(itic!( $o-er or of cu(tur!( $roduction.7 W et er it !cce$ts one or t e ot er of t ese t-o do)in!nts de$ends on - et er istoricis) t!@es its ins$ir!tion fro) t e t eories of #!: Weber !nd 4ouc!u(t< or fro) ?!udri((!rd !nd t e *)eric!n t eorist of ! 5$ost6industri!( society<7 res$ecti>e(y (in 0ic ter 118263). In (i% t of t ese differenti!tions< it -ou(d be interestin% to in;uire into t e subt(e )oti>!tions under$innin% t e current o$en osti(ity< e>inced by )uc 0o)!ni!n criticis)< to #!r:ist !nd istoricist re!din%s of (iter!ture< !nd its re(!tions i$ to t e inco))ensur!te interest t!@en by 0o)!ni!=s inte((ectu!(s in $o(itics. & e (!tter !s$ect -!s ! foresee!b(e $ eno)enon !fter t e 5four dec!des of forced n!tion!( !)nesi!7 ("orni]6'o$e 32)< Iustified by ! $syc o(o%ic!( (!- of co)$ens!tion< f!ci(it!ted by t e ne-(y !c;uired freedo) of e:$ression< !nd -e(co)ed by ! nu)ber of t eoretici!ns - o re%!rd it !s our on(y c !nce of o>erco)in% t e $o(itic!( i)$!sse ot er-ise @no-n !s 5t e !%e of tr!nsition.7 *t t e s!)e ti)e< t e resist!nce to istoricis) !nd #!r:ist cu(tur!( di!(ectics !s cu(tur!(

Part T1o

10,

i)$(ic!tions t !t !>e not< !s yet< been $ro$er(y e:!)ined. I !r%ue t !t 0o)!ni!n critic!( t in@in% itse(f !s re!c ed !n i)$!sse< - ic de)!nds ! r!dic!( redefinition of t e conce$t of cu(ture t !t inc(udes ! istoricist in>esti%!tion of c ronoto$ic!( bound!ries. & e t ird< )et odo(o%ic!( but interre(!ted< distinction is bet-een istoric!( !nd istoricist !$$ro!c es. '!u( .!)i(ton $ro$oses:
istoricist criticis) does not re$resent str!i% tfor-!rd(y t e (iter!ry e:$ressions !bout - ic it -!nts to s$e!@. .istoricis) does not offer une;ui>oc!( inter$ret!tions of t e te:t in front of it in !ccord!nce -it conce$ts of (iter!ry criticis)< %ener!(is!tions necess!ry to t e co erence of its discursi>e $r!ctice. It is incorri%ib(y ref(e:i>e. 4or t e istoricist< criticis) is to be understood by -!y of its consciousness of its o-n re(!ti>is) in e!c !nd e>ery Iud%e)ent it )!@es. (in Jne((-o(f K 2orris 21)

.istoric!( criticis)< on t e ot er !nd<

!c ie>es its ends by conte:tu!(isin% its inter$ret!tion by reference to e>ents or ot er discourses conte)$or!ry -it t !t e:$ression. .istoricist criticis)< t ou% < inter$oses !not er $(!ne of inter$ret!tion - ic t!@es !s its subIect t ose $resent $reIudices or !ssu)$tions by - ic suc istoric!( critics decide t !t so)et in% is indeed istoric!((y re(e>!nt. (21)

I !>e ;uoted t is !t (en%t bec!use it $ro>ides us -it ! usefu( inter$reti>e sti$u(!tion. & e istoric!( !$$ro!c is b!sed< in %ood nineteent 6century tr!dition< on t e be(ief in t e %eneric se$!r!tion of istory !nd (iter!ture !nd in t eir res$ecti>e co erence !nd )e!nin%fu(nessG !t best< !s in t e disci$(ine of *)eric!n Studies before t e )id61970s< t e t-o fie(ds< t ou% discrete< !re 5)utu!((y reson!nt<7 to use Qe (en=s $ r!se (>ii). .istoricis)< on t e ot er !nd< is bot re(!ti>isin% !nd se(f6conscious(y )et odic!( !s it dr!-s ! er)eneutic circ(e !round its ostensib(e obIect of en;uiry C t e (iter!ry te:t C -it out o-e>er $enetr!tin% to it. .istoricis)=s r!dic!( distrust of fin!( inter$ret!tions !nd ier!rc ies is co)$ens!ted for by its $ro$ensity to e:$ose !nd Iu:t!$ose< b!sed on t e be(ief in t e )utu!( >!(id!tion of $!st !nd $resent< (iter!ture !nd ideo(o%y< !rt !nd istory. In ?ritis "u(tur!( #!teri!(is)< o-e>er< t e )e!nin% of t e o$er!tion!( ter) O istoricis)= co)es c(oser to .!)i(ton=s definition of istoric!( criticis) (-itness ?!rry 2002: 18/67 !nd 2003: 726/)< t !t is< it $ro)otes conte:tu!(is!tion !nd interro%!tes c ronoto$ic!( conc!ten!tions. & us< not on(y do !(( conte)$or!ry t eories c(!i) istoricist credenti!(s< but t ey in f!ct e:ist< on t e istoricist >ie-< due to ideo(o%y< to t e s!)e e:tent to - ic t ey e:ist in (!n%u!%e !nd due to de>e(o$)ents in (in%uistics. .istoricist t eories reco%nise - !t #i@ !i( ?!@ tin described !s t e di!(o%ic n!ture of (!n%u!%e: e>en -it in t e indi>idu!( >oice t ere is ! const!nt di!(o%ue bet-een - !t t e >oice !s to s!y !nd - !t !s !(-!ys !(re!dy been s!id by ot ers. &o s$e!@ is to reco%nise t !t (!n%u!%e is soci!(< t !t it !s )e!nin% !nd it functions $recise(y bec!use it !s been used !nd n!tur!(ised by ot ers before us !nd i)$rinted by t e)G t !t -ords !>e ! istory of t eir o-n< - ic t ey c!nnot re(in;uis < but c!rry -it t e) in e>ery 5ne-7 for)u(!tion< in e>ery ne- (iter!ry

10-

Part T1o

-or@. It is t erefore no)in!((y t e function of (in%uistics to un)!s@ t e !berr!tions of ideo(o%y )!de )!nifest in (iter!ture< '!u( de #!n st!tes< but (!n%u!%e itse(f is ideo(o%ic!((y t!inted. & e @ey ;uestions -e )ust !s@ !bout (!n%u!%e !re< on t e one !nd< by - !t )e!ns did (in%uistic )e!nin% beco)e n!tur!(ised by istoric!( referenceD *nd on t e ot er< o- do -e @no- t !t -e c!n !(-!ys )!r@ t e bound!ry bet-een (in%uistic !nd $ eno)eno(o%ic!( re!(ityD & e interro%!tion of t ese issues is istoricis)=s $ro$er t!s@.

Part T1o

10+

The (et"rn to; of the 8nconscio"s

La mort du P7re enl7!era " la litt=rature #eaucoup de ses plaisirs: -4il n4y a plus de P7re, " 5uoi #on raconter des histoires< (0o(!nd ?!rt es)

+ne of t e (!nd)!r@s in 4!u(@ner criticis)< Qo n &. Ir-in=s boo@ Dou#ling and 'ncest / ,epetition and ,e!enge: A -peculati!e ,eading of .aul ner (1975) !(so re$resents ! turnin% $oint in *)eric!n $syc o!n!(ytic!( sc o(!rs i$. Its ess!yistic< circu(!r< o$en6ended for) en!cts !nd !n!(yses t e ref(ection of 4reudi!n t eory in 4!u(@neri!n $rose. W !t e)er%es is ! $ro(ifer!tion of f!t er6son re(!tions i$s< bot -it in t e Fo@n!$!t!-$ ! s!%! !nd outside< si%n!((in% t e co)$(ic!tions of t e -!ys in - ic t e indi>idu!( is for)ed by< !nd re(!tes to< t e -or(d C be it fiction!( or re!(< i)!%in!ry or sy)bo(ic. & e boo@ t us )!r@s ! )!Ior de$!rture in t e direction of L!c!ni!n t eory. In t is ess!y I c !rt t e territory co>ered by 4reudi!nis)< L!c!ni!nis)< !nd L!c!ni!ns. L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis< in d-e((in% on (iter!ry -or@s !s confor)in% to t e (!-s of !n intern!( -or(d of t eir o-n< !>oids t e s$ecu(!ti>eness of e!r(ier 4reudi!n en;uiries into t e (ife !nd cre!ti>e )ec !nis)s of t e !ut or. *t t e s!)e ti)e< in bein% infor)ed by (in%uistics< fro) - ic it e:tr!$o(!tes )!ny of its !ssu)$tions re%!rdin% t e or%!nis!tion of t e $syc e !nd t e si%nifyin% $rocesses< L!c!ni!n t eory )!@es itse(f !>!i(!b(e to discussions of t e for)!tion !nd functionin% of co))unities !nd ci>i(is!tions. *s t e -or@ of #ic e( 4ouc!u(t de)onstr!tes< $syc o!n!(ysis s$i((s into t e study of cu(ture< istory !nd society -it fruitfu( conse;uences. Wi((i!) 4!u(@ner re$e!ted(y insisted t !t e !d ne>er re!d 4reud !nd t !t !(( e @ne- !bout $syc o(o%y e !d (e!rned fro) is c !r!cters !nd is $o@er $(!y)!tes. Qo n &. Ir-in e:$(!ins t !t t is c(!i) -!s $rob!b(y not !t !(( ! f!cetious st!te)ent of t e -riter=s inde$endence of )indG r!t er< 5 e !d (e!rned enou% !bout 4reud=s ide!s to -!nt to !>oid t e t re!t to is o-n cre!ti>e ener%y !nd enter$rise t !t )i% t be $osed by ! sense of is o-n -or@ !>in% been !ntici$!ted by 4reud=s7 (5). +ne )i% t e>en be te)$ted to s!y t !t< out of !n e:!cerb!ted !n:iety of inf(uence< 4!u(@ner !d $referred not to @no- is 54!t er7 !t !((. Fet e -ou(d be ! r!t er uni;ue c!se in *)eric!n (iter!ture: 4reud=s t eories -ere -ide(y s$re!d !)on% t e intelligentsia in t e first !(f of t e t-entiet century C -itness 4!u(@ner=s o-n re)iniscence !bout !>in% $ic@ed u$ !(( e @ne- !bout t e $syc o(o%ist in con>ers!tions -it -ritin% friends< in 2e- +r(e!ns. In criticis)< too< 4reud !d ! $resti%ious fo((o-in%< !(beit restricted to is e%o $syc o(o%y. Fet< !round t e )idd(e of t e century< t e uncondition!( ent usi!s) for is t eories of t e $syc e -!s $eterin% out< to ! cert!in e:tent due to t e te)$or!ry )o)entu)

110

Part T1o

%!ined by t e co)$etin% Qun%i!n !$$ro!c !nd 2ort ro$ 4rye=s se)in!( !nd cre!ti>e de$(oy)ent of it in The Anatomy of Criticism& .our *ssays (1957). *ccordin% to 0obert "on D!>is< *ndrV ?(ei@!sten< 0ic !rd ?rod e!d< !nd ot ers< Ir-in=s boo@ Dou#ling and 'ncest / ,epetition and ,e!enge re$resents ! cruci!( turnin% $oint in *)eric!n criticis). & e $ub(ic!tion of Ir-in=s ess!y )!r@s t e )o)ent - en $syc o!n!(ysis= critic!( $otenti!(s !re re6e>!(u!ted !nd reinte%r!ted in (iter!ry criticis). In its ne- %uise< $syc o!n!(ytic criticis) -i(( e)br!ce t e (!test de>e(o$)ents in t e so6c!((ed 4renc or L!c!ni!n 4reudi!nis)< !n !$$ro!c !t t e crossro!ds of structur!(ist (es$eci!((y Q!@obsoni!n !nd ?en>eniste!n) (in%uistics !nd 4reudi!n $syc o!n!(ysis. * nu)ber of fe!tures distin%uis t is reinter$ret!tion of 4reud fro) t e o(der >!ri!nt of $syc o!n!(ysis. Q!c;ues L!c!n=s contribution -!s ! >ery c(ose re!din% of 4reud t !t fore%rounds cert!in e(e)ents in t e e!r(ier $syc o(o%ist=s t eory !nd reconte:tu!(ises t e) t rou% ! so$ istic!ted inter$ret!tion of t e $syc e !s ! syste) si)i(!r to t !t of (!n%u!%e. 1ssenti!((y< t e ne- !$$ro!c c!$it!(ises on 4reud=s !n!(ysis of (iter!ry !nd )yt ic!( c !r!cters !s $!tients re>e!(in% !n ur6 scene (i.e.< !n initi!(< or $ri)!(< incident) of tr!u)! - ose inter$ret!tion cou(d t en be used to underst!nd t e !i()ents< !n:ieties< desires< frustr!tions !nd obsessions of !ctu!( $eo$(e. +f 4reud=s t eory< fe- tro$es -ere ret!ined: t e )!ny6(e>e((ed structure of t e $syc e< -it t e in erent tensions c!used by t eir >yin% for contro( !nd t e u(ti)!te (!c@ of ! definiti>e $o-er ier!rc y !)on% t e)G t e resu(tin% sc iEo$ reni!< t e $re6e)inent dise!se of $ost)odernityG t e $er$etu!( re%ress to !n !nterior tr!u)!tic sceneG t e return of t e re$ressed in t e for) of sy)bo(s< sy)$to)s< !nd unintention!( re>e(!tions. & e +edi$!( scene of tri!n%u(!r desire beco)es< in L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis< ! se;uence of t-o6di)ension!( re(!tions i$s< in - ic t e son=s reco%nition of is !utono)y fro) t e body of t e )ot er )!r@s is entry into t e Sy)bo(ic order of t e non/ nom du p7re (5t e (!- of t e f!t er<7 - ic re%u(!tes soci!( be !>iour)< in - ic t e )ot er=s ro(e is ne%(i%ib(e. L!c!n=s t eory of e%o for)!tion !nd is conc(usion t !t 5-e !re - ere -e t in@ not7 (i.e.< our true se(f is in t e unconscious< r!t er t !n in t e conscious )ind) !>e s !$ed so)e of t e )ost i)$ort!nt t eories !bout )odern society< !nd !>e s ed (i% t on )!ny of its $!r!do:es. L!c!n re(ies on S!ussure=s< Q!@obson=s< !nd ?en>eniste=s e:$(ic!tions of (!n%u!%e !s ! syste) of bi(!ter!( si%ns in - ic t ere !re no $ositi>e ter)s< on(y differences< !nd in - ic )e!nin% itse(f< to t e e:tent to - ic it c!n be c!$tured< is strict(y re(!tion!( !nd $ro>ision!(. & e $syc e is %o>erned by t e s!)e ru(es t !t re%u(!te (!n%u!%e< !nd subIect to t e s!)e irre%u(!r s(idin%s of t e si%nified under t e si%nifier< !nd of t e si%nifier fro) one $osition to !not er in ! $!r!di%)!tic c !in si)i(!r to t e one described by S!ussure in (in%uistics< but in - ic t e $osition t !t !s Iust been (eft (i.e.< ! si%nifier) s(ides under t e ne- one t us beco)in% ! si%nified. In L!c!n=s e(!bor!tion of t e ?en>eniste!n bin!ry of s$o@en subIect8 s$e!@in% subIect< t e conscious is t e for)er< !s re>e!(ed in t e 5)!teri!(7 )!nifest!tions of need !nd !rticu(!ted de)!nd. & e unconscious< con>erse(y< is t e e>er6e(usi>e si%nified< t e se!t of desire< )!de )!nifest on(y in t e brief %!$s

Part T1o

111

t !t o$en u$ !s t e si%nifier $erfor)s its inst!nce8 insistence or !%ency. & e for)er< t en< be(on%s to t e Sy)bo(ic order< !nd is t erefore t e subIect=s +t er< t !t - ic is conditioned by t e e:tern!( (!- of t e f!t er. & e unconscious C - ic is %ener!ted !s ! resu(t of t e entr!nce into t e Sy)bo(ic t rou% re$ression of t e ori%in!( desire for t e )ot er C is in its turn ! structure of si%nifiers t !t !re e:tern!((y o>er6deter)ined. & erefore< t e unconscious< too< is t e +t er< !(t ou% t e t-o !re ne>er to be confused: t ey !re< !s L!c!n $uts it< 5r!dic!((y e:6centric7 to e!c ot erG t eir re(!tion is one of s$(it< di>ision< !nd conf(ict. 0o)!n Q!@obson=s discussion of !$ !si! brin%s t e -or@in% of t e $syc e into e>en c(oser re(!tion to (iter!ry tro$es. In is se)in!( ess!y entit(ed 5&-o *s$ects of L!n%u!%e !nd &-o *s$ects of *$ !sic Disturb!nce7 (1953)< e distin%uis es t-o ty$es of !$ !si!< )et!$ oric !nd )etony)ic< t !t o$er!te in nor)!( >erb!( be !>iour. Q!@obson de>e(o$s t ese t-o ty$es of disturb!nce usin% !s is st!rtin% $oint 4reud=s $syc ic $rocesses of identific!tion !nd sy)bo(is)< on t e one !nd< !nd synecdoc ic condens!tion !nd )etony)ic dis$(!ce)ent< on t e ot er (in 0i>@in K 0y!n 9/). .e t en e:tends is discussion not on(y to differenti!te bet-een t e functionin% of (!n%u!%e in $oetry !nd $rose< res$ecti>e(y< but !(so to e:$(!in t e $ri>i(e%in% of )et!$ or or )etony)y by cert!in !rtistic trends (926/). .is findin%s !>e beco)e u%e(y inf(uenti!( in structur!(is) !nd $oststructur!(is)< !s -e(( !s in L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis. In L!c!ni!n (iter!ry t eory< not on(y is t e $syc e described !s ! syste) c !r!cterised by t e s!)e differenti!( $rinci$(es t !t !re encountered in (!n%u!%e< but t e te:t itse(f is !ssu)ed to !>e !n unconscious - ic c!n be subIected to t e inter$reti>e %rid of t e t-in $rocesses< 5identific!tion !s )isreco%nition !nd desire !nd its frustr!tion7 (in Jne((-o(f K 2orris 185)< but - ose functionin% c!n on(y be described $ro>ision!((y. & is is !n interdisci$(in!ry )et od - ic det!c es t e te:t fro) !(( referenti!(ity !nd !%ency !nd %r!nts it - !t )i% t be c!((ed< in 0obert "on D!>is= $ r!se< t e 5psychoanalytical anthropomorphism of the te+t 7 (D!>is 1981: 3 C !ut or=s e)$ !sis). It $(!ces t e f!t er fi%ure 5ua !bsence !t t e centre of t e te:t !nd tr!ces t e ori%ins of is conce$tu!( e:istence in is concrete )!nifest!tions. D!>is su)s u$:
Since t e o$er!tions of t e $syc o!n!(ytic!( subIect !nd t e te:t !re synony)ous C r!t er< since te:tu!(ity is !n inscri$tion of t e subIectN! (iter!ry n!rr!ti>e s o-s !s$ects of suc unconscious $rocesses !s seduction< $ri)!( scene< !nd c!str!tion C t e o$er!tions of re$ression C !nd t ese o$er!tions (!s corres$ondin% functions in n!rr!ti>e) constitute t e fiction!( subst!nce of ! te:t< - !t t e 0ussi!n for)!(ists c!((ed t e te:t=s 5(iter!riness.7 (3)

In ot er -ords< !ccordin% to $syc o!n!(ytic t eory< - !t )!@es ! te:t 5(iter!ry7 is t e f!ct t !t it functions on t e b!sis of t e s!)e $rinci$(es t !t %o>ern t e unconscious !nd it re$roduces in its structure t e s!)e tensions !nd $!rti!( reso(utions. D!>is t en %oes on to de>e(o$ ! t eory of $!tern!(6fi(i!( tri!n%u(!tion b!sed on Ir-in=s se)in!( ess!y !nd !$$(ied to t e Odyssey< - ereby e est!b(is es t e

112

Part T1o

$ri)!( scene of $!tern!(ist (!-6%i>in% not in t e +edi$!( )yt < but in !n e!r(ier conf(ict bet-een t e %ods. +dysseus !nd ^eus !re c!u% t u$ in ! co)$(e: f!t er6 son re(!tions i$ -it innu)er!b(e r!)ific!tions< in - ic t ey !re bot sons !nd f!t ers< !nd t eir !ttitudes to t eir sons !re infor)ed by t eir fe!r of t eir o-n c!str!tin% f!t ers< on - o) t ey !d e:!cted re>en%e. Jronos= de>ourin% of is sons (r!t er t !n be t re!tened -it t e f!te e !d inf(icted on is f!t er 9r!nus) -!s t e )o)ent - en e !(so destroyed !ut ority< since !ut ority e:ists on(y !s (on% !s t ere is so)ebody it c!n be e:ercised on. In s!>in% is o-n (ife< ^eus -!s !(so recu$er!tin% f!t er ood !nd !ut ority< )!r@in% ! cruci!( re>ers!( C ence is ro(e !s $rotector of f!t ers !nd c i(dren !nd %i>er of t e (!- !%!inst fi(icide !nd $!tricide.:::i In t is )ode( t e son=s desire (e!>es be ind t e c(!ssic!( +edi$!( fi:!tion on t e )ot er< !nd beco)es connected -it t e f!t er< in ti)e re!ssertin% t e f!t er=s (!-. & e ori%ins of t e unconscious !re not in t e f!t er=s 5no7 to t e son=s desire for t e )ot er< but in t e son=s subse;uent desire for - !t t e f!t er st!nds for: t e $ !((us !s sy)bo( of bot $o-er !nd !ut ority C !nd t e (!c@ t ereof. & !t is !(so - ere t e 5ori%ins7 of t e (iter!ry n!rr!ti>e !re to be found< !ccordin% to D!>is: 52!rr!ti>es be%in -it t e bindin% of t e son=s desire to t e f!t er7 (13). & !t bindin% is e:$ressed in t e t ird ter)< t e conce$tu!( %r!s$ of t e $re)ises of t e bindin%< t e e;ui>!(ent of t e f!ctu!( subst!nce of t e n!rr!ti>e< - !t 'eter ?roo@s c!((s ! n!rr!ti>e d=tour (;td. 13). It is ! )edi!tion of t e conf(ict bet-een t e scene of t e fi(i!( desire !s !%!inst t e $!tern!( 5no<7 !nd t e son=s 5no7 to is o-n son. & is )edi!tion is to be found in t e 5di(!tory s$!ce7 (?roo@s= $ r!se< ;td. 13) (or r!t er ti)e) of t e n!rr!tion. D!>is conc(udes:
& e sy)bo(ic f!t er ofN!ny n!rr!ti>e< is ! $rinci$(e of function t !t st!nds be ind t e )ec !nis)s (t e $ri)!( f!nt!sies) of seduction< $ri)!( scene< !nd c!str!tion. *(( of t ese functions !re 5unconscious7 in t !t t ey !re in erent to n!rr!ti>e structure. 4irst !)on% t e)< o-e>er< is t e sin%(e $rinci$(e of )e!nin% t !t $recedes t e $(ur!(ity of n!rr!ti>e )e!nin%s !nd st!nds be ind !(( n!rr!ti>e de>e(o$)ents< )uc !s Jronos= $!tern!( rebe((ion (fro) its be%innin% !(re!dy in ! (ine of $!tern!( rebe((ions C t erefore< !(re!dy ! re$etition) st!nds be ind The Odyssey.N 4or< -it in t e sy)bo(ic conste((!tion (ies t e (!c@ !t t e ori%in t !t !ut oriEes n!rr!ti>e !nd inte((i%ibi(ity: t !t (!c@ is t e $ri)!( tr!ce of $!tern!( !ut ority. (25)

& e re(e>!nce to n!rr!ti>e of 5L!c!n=s e(!bor!tion of t e subIect !s t e $rocess of si%nific!tion<7 D!>is e:$(!ins in is 1$i(o%ue< is t !t 5L!c!n !ctu!((y deconstructs t e $ !((ocentric c!st of $erson!( identity !nd finds< in its $(!ce< ! c !in of !(-!ys $!rti!( obIects e)$o-ered to o$er!te !s ! syste) of si%nific!tion7 (185). I)$(ic!ted in L!c!n=s unity of t e subIect is !(-!ys t e fund!)ent!( s$(it !%!inst - ic t !t unity !c;uires its )e!nin%. &o e:tr!$o(!te< t e $ri)!( f!)i(y scene t!@es $(!ce bet-een f!t er< son< !nd ! t ird< ! )edi!tor< - o is !(tern!te(y ! foref!t er8 S$irit8 L!-8 Sy)bo(ic +rder. & e f!t er $re6e:ists t e son !nd en!cts !n !(-!ys !(re!dy e:istent (!-G in beco)in% ! f!t er e !ssu)es t e ro(e of - !t D!>is c!((s 5-ise c i(d<7 t e (in@ bet-een t e (!- of t e f!t er !nd t e son. Fet e is !(so !n !bsence< - ose $resence is

Part T1o

11"

)!nifested in t e tr!ces of is !bsence< es$eci!((y in t e (!n%u!%e of is (!-G e is t e Sy)bo(< t e (o%os< t e $ !((us< t e $o-er C in su)< t e obIect of desire. & e f!t er !nd son $ositions !re f(uid: t e son su$$(!nts t e f!t er in t e ro(e of ! f!t er to is o-n sons< - ere!s t e f!t er $ositions i)se(f !is-"-!is t e son !s !%!inst t !t - ic constitutes i) !s ! f!t er< !nd t us ! )!nifest!tion of is o-n !bsent f!t er. & e f!t er< t en< is ! function (see !(so ?(ei@!sten in D!>is 1981: 11/)< !nd t e ine>it!b(e s(idin% of t e son into t e $osition of t e f!t er is co)$!r!b(e to t e s(idin% of t e unconscious under t e conscious: t e for)er is not co)$(ete(y su$$ressed but it is cont!ined !nd restricted by t e (!-s of t e sy)bo(ic< )!de in>isib(e< !s it -ere< e:ce$t in t e tr!ces of its o-n !bsence C i.e.< t e re%ression of t e no- son6(ess f!t er b!c@ to t e son $osition. & e t ird e(e)ent< t e )edi!tion< is - !t re%u(!tes !nd )!@es $ossib(e t ese $er)ut!tions. In n!rr!ti>e ter)s< it re$resents t e (on% series of e>ents - ereby t e end is s o-n to !>e in ered in t e be%innin%. & e n!rr!ti>e< t en< is by definition t e subIect=s infinite re%ress in se!rc of ori%ins< - ic !re !(-!ys e(se- ere< in (!n%u!%e !nd ideo(o%y. D!>is= t eory of n!rr!ti>e !nd )e!nin% !s ori%in!tin% in (!c@ !nd desire is one $ossib(e i((ustr!tion of t e -or@in% of $syc o!n!(ysis in (iter!ry studies: ! dyn!)ic di!(ectics< - ereby (iter!ture yie(ds )e!nin%s t !t i((u)in!te $syc o!n!(ysis (bot !s t eory !nd $r!ctice)< Iust !s t e (!tter unr!>e(s t e intric!te te:ture of t e n!rr!ti>e. *n e;u!((y $roducti>e !$$ro!c -!s t !t ste))in% fro) .!ro(d ?(oo)=s t eory of t e 5!n:iety of inf(uence7 (1973). In is i% (y inf(uenti!( boo@ of t !t tit(e< e $ro$oses t !t t e )odern -riter (es$eci!((y since #i(ton)< in is ;uest for ori%in!(ity !nd reno-n< c ooses e!r(y on< fro) !)on%st t e (iter!ry tr!dition< ! 5f!t er fi%ure<7 ! -riter - o) e dee$(y !d)ires !nd -is es to sur$!ss in s@i(( !nd success. #... *br!)s e:$(!ins t is $redic!)ent in A 2lossary of Literary Terms:
& e be(!ted $oet unconscious(y s!fe%u!rds is o-n sense of !utono)y !nd $riority by re!din% ! $!rent6$oe) Odefensi>e(y=< in suc ! -!y !s to distort it beyond is o-n conscious reco%nition. 2onet e(ess< e c!nnot !>oid e)bodyin% t e )!(for)ed $!rent6$oe) into is o-n doo)ed !tte)$t to -rite !n un$recedented(y ori%in!( $oe)G t e )ost t !t e>en t e best be(!ted $oet c!n !c ie>e is to -rite ! $oe) so Ostron%= t !t it effects !n i((usion of O$riority= C t !t is< !n i((usion bot t !t it $recedes t e f!t er6 $oe) in ti)e !nd t !t it e:ceeds it in %re!tness. (;td. "uddon)

In ot er -ords< t e -riter - o unconscious(y fee(s t e inf(uence of ! $recursor< -i(( do is best to bot er!se !nd outr!n@ t !t inf(uence< but t e $rocess is ne>er co)$(ete C -itness t e $(et or! of criticis) de!(in% -it te:ts co)$!r!ti>e(y !nd $ointin% out inf(uences. & is reIection is t!nt!)ount to !n !tte)$t to free onese(f fro) !(( for)s of i))ut!b(e !ut ority< &i)e inc(uded: c!str!tion< t e dre!ded !ct - ereby t e 4!t er )!r@s t e Son< is< !fter !((< ! synecdoc e for de!t . & e tr!ces of t e inf(uence< o-e>er< !re t ere< in t e youn%er -riter=s -or@< !nd t ey est!b(is ! co)$(e: di!(o%ue bet-een te:ts !cross %ener!tions< @no-n !s 5interte:tu!(ity7 (! ter) coined by Qu(i! Jriste>!). 0ic !rd .. Jin%< in A -outhern ,enaissance (1980)< e:$(!ins t e )odernist -riter=s -i(( to ori%in!(ity< - ic is !(so ! -i(( to i))ort!(ity

11/

Part T1o

( is cre!tion of !n i)!%in!ry -or(d bein% is !tte)$t to -it st!nd ti)e !nd de!t )< in ter)s of bot 4reudi!n !nd L!c!ni!n tri!n%u(!tions of desire !nd soci!( inte%r!tion. It e)er%es t !t !bso(ute ori%in!(ity is i)$ossib(e: t e te:t !(-!ys !(re!dy inserts itse(f in ! series -it - ic it initi!tes ! (on%6ter) di!(o%ue !nd - ic >!(id!tes it on(y to t e e:tent to - ic t e for)er e)br!ces !nd )odifies t e (!tter=s (!n%u!%e. Fet $syc o!n!(ytic!( t eory does not sto$ !t t e (e>e( of t e (iter!ry te:t. Qu(i! Jriste>!< in !n e!r(y Tel ;uel !rtic(e entit(ed 5Se)iotics: ! critic!( science !nd8or ! criti;ue of science<7 ur%es se)iotics to beco)e ! 5se)iotics of $roduction7 (;td. Se(den 2/5)< t !t is< to !d)it bot t e #!r:ist !ssess)ent of t e >!(ue of $roducts !nd t e 4reudi!n e)$ !sis on t e $rocess of si%nific!tion into t e study of se)iotic si%ns. & e conse;uence is t e reco%nition of t e du!( n!ture of (!n%u!%e !s bot re$resent!tion !nd $roduction< corres$ondin% to t e conscious !nd t e unconscious< res$ecti>e(y< !nd its tr!ns(!tion into t e sy)bo(ic !nd se)iotic st!%es of si%nific!tion. & is !)ounts to ! cross6disci$(in!ry e:$(!n!tion of t e n!ture !nd $ro>en!nce of $oetic (!n%u!%e< - ic is s o-n to ori%in!te in t e irru$tion of t e se)iotic into t e sy)bo(ic structure of soci!((y6s!nctioned (!n%u!%e (see "e(i! ?ritton in Se(den 2/5650). Qo n Du>!(( e:$(!ins ?ri!n #c.!(e=s t eory of $eriod code do)in!nts in si)i(!r ter)s. #c.!(e is s!id to $ic@ u$ t e L!c!ni!n e(!bor!tion of ?en>eniste=s bin!ry< !ccordin% to - ic t e conscious is no1ing< - i(e t e unconscious is #eing< !nd !$$(ies it to is de(i)it!tion of $ost)odernis) fro) )odernis). "onse;uent(y< t e (!tter $ri>i(e%es t e e$iste)o(o%ic!( do)in!nt< - i(e in t e for)er t e onto(o%ic!( )ode !s $ride of $(!ce (in Du>!(( K *b!die i:). W !t !(( t ese !$$ro!c es !>e in co))on is t e reco%nition of $syc o!n!(ysis= )et odo(o%ic!( $otenti!(s< its >!(ue !s !n inter$reti>e %rid. & e return to8 of $syc o!n!(ysis in *)eric!n criticis)< t en< is ! return of t e re$ressed< ! re>!(u!tion of t e inter$reti>e $ossibi(ities o$ened u$ by t e reco%nition of unconscious $rocesses. It is !(so ! return to $reoccu$!tions -it 5t e e:!ct definition< st!tus !nd ro(e of si%nifyin% $r!ctice in re(!tion to t e indi>idu!( subIect !nd society7 (?ritton in Se(den 252). In t is res$ect $syc o!n!(ysis is conti%uous -it t e neo6#!r:ist )ission of identifyin% t e -!y in - ic )e!nin% is istoric!((y s!nctioned !nd uni>ers!(ised. ?ut $syc o!n!(ysis is e>en )ore c(ose(y connected -it fe)inist< %!y !nd $ostco(oni!( studies< - ic < in !ddition to !>in% !$$ro$ri!ted t e tenets of 4reudi!n !nd L!c!ni!n t eory< !(so !>e ! >ery stron% $o(itic!( !%end!. 4ro) t is ;u!rter< t e )ost (e%iti)!te obIections to $syc o!n!(ysis= c(!i)s $oint out t !t< not on(y does $syc o!n!(ysis focus !()ost e:c(usi>e(y on ! subIect t !t is fund!)ent!((y t e Western (- ite) )!(e !s (!%i>er< but it !ud!cious(y dr!-s s-ee$in% %ener!(is!tions !bout - !t is uni>ers!((y >!(id in u)!n n!ture< in tot!( disre%!rd of istoric!(< ideo(o%ic!( or %ender circu)st!nces< - !t ' i(i$ Weinstein %eneric!((y c!((s 5AtB e soci!( en%ine of $roducin% n!rr!ti>es of nor)!ti>e identity7 (in Du>!(( K *b!die 23). L!c!n i)se(f !s been >!rious(y !ccused of $ro)otin% ! $ !((o%ocentric Ai.e.< centred !round t e !ut orit!ti>e Word of t e 4!t erB< $!tri!rc !(< bour%eois ide!(is)< !nd is sty(e is r!t er inf!)ous for its e(itist obscurity.

Part T1o

11.

& e e!sy (ine of defence !%!inst suc indict)ents is to desi%n!te t e) !s sy)$to)s of t e !n:iety of inf(uence. Fet t ere is ! )ore co)$(e: !s$ect to ideo(o%ic!((y6b!sed criti;ues< one t !t !s to do -it t eir >!rious socio(o%ic!( co))it)ents: suc !$$ro!c es do not !((o- )uc !%ency to t e subIect itse(f< but re%!rd it !s soci!((y o>erdeter)ined !nd r!t er st!tic. 'syc o!n!(ysis< on t e ot er !nd< focuses $ri)!ri(y on t e indi>idu!( 5ua 5subIect !(i>e !nd in )otion t !t ne>er c!n be @no-n direct(y< but c!n be @no-n on(y in its !bsence< in t e tr!ces it (e!>es be ind: in t e $resence of !n !bsence t !t is (!n%u!%e7 (D!>is 1981: 185). L!c!n=s nom/ non du p7re !s !n ine(uct!b(e soci!( co)$onent: its >ery e:istence -ou(d not be $ossib(e -it out society=s s!nction< e>en - i(e subIect6for)!tion is indi>idu!((y circu)scribed. 'syc o!n!(ysis= )ost i)$ort!nt connection< o-e>er< !s -e !>e seen< !nd its )ost $ertinent criti;ue< resides -it (in%uistics :::ii: $oststructur!(is) !nd L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis !re irre)edi!b(y !nd )utu!((y infor)!ti>e< :::iii rooted !s t ey !re in t e co)$(e: $rocesses t !t %r!nt )e!nin% to (!n%u!%e !nd )!@e co))unic!tion $ossib(e. 4ro) ! $oststructur!(ist $ers$ecti>e< $syc o!n!(ysis !$$e!rs to be )uc too secure in its be(ief t !t t ere !re tr!nscendent uni>ers!( )e!nin%s of u)!n identity - ic c!n be re!c ed t rou% its scientific $rotoco(s< - i(e - !t it !$$e!rs to be doin% is dr!- er)eneutic circ(es !nd %ener!te )ore n!rr!ti>es in need of e:$(ic!tion< out of t e s eer i)$u(se to infinite di!%nosis. & e defence )ounted by recent $syc o!n!(ytic critics (i@e D!>is is $recise(y t !t t is !$$ro!c is usefu( strict(y to t e e:tent to - ic it re$resents ! )et od of deconstructin% t e te:t !nd re>e!(in% its 5unconscious7 (in%uistic !nd n!rr!ti>e de>ices< t e 5$!tern!( %ift7 of (!n%u!%e t !t 5)!@es n!rr!tion !n e>er $resent $ossibi(ity7 (1981: 189). & is is !(so t e !i) C to t e e:tent to - ic it c!n be s!id to !>e ! $recise !i) C of deconstruction. & e e$i%r!$ I !>e c osen for t is discussion (!nd - ic C in ! %esture t !t L!c!n -ou(d no doubt !>e !$$reci!ted C I !>e $ur(oined fro) ?(ei@!sten=s ess!y in D!>is 1981: 115) is ! >ery effecti>e -!y of s o-in% t eir interde$endence: if t ere !re no f!t ers< t ere is no $oint in de>isin% !nd te((in% stories.

112

Part T1o

The (et"rn to the Te&t

?.@unctions, forms, signs and significationsAare, today, 1ords of common use from 1hich one as s Band o#tainsC 1hate!er one 1ants, nota#ly the camouflage of the old determinist schema of cause and product: (0o(!nd ?!rt es)

Deconstruction< t e (!te t-entiet 6century eir to te:tu!( !n!(ysis< !s )odified )!ny of t e e!r(ier !ssu)$tions !bout t e (iter!ry te:t. Its interdisci$(in!rity< )oreo>er< !s cre!ted !n en>iron)ent in - ic t e te:t bot undoes !nd reconstructs itse(f !ne- -it e>ery re!din%. & e e$i%r!$ to t e $resent ess!y co)es fro) 0o(!nd ?!rt es= 5& e Structur!(ist *cti>ity7 (1933< tr!ns. 1972)< !n !rtic(e in - ic e e:$(!ins t e trend t !t su$$(!nted t e e!r(ier for)!(is) in t e 1950s !nd 1930s. It is %ener!((y be(ie>ed t !t 5& e De!t of t e *ut or7 (1938< tr!ns. 1977) !nd es$eci!((y -/ D (1970< tr!ns. 1975) re$resent is turn to deconstruction< but in 5& e Structur!(ist *cti>ity7 t ere !re !(re!dy t e %er)s< if not for ! ne- !$$ro!c to criticis)< !t (e!st for ! ne- )!t!(!n%u!%e. ?!rt es sub)its ere t !t structur!(is) is neit er ! sc oo( nor ! )o>e)ent< nor s ou(d it e>er beco)e eit er< !nd t !t it s ou(d !do$t ! se(f6conscious )et odo(o%ic!( !nd et ic!( ri%or. #oreo>er< t e ter)s in - ic e describes it< insistin% t !t it is ! )ent!( 5!cti>ity7 c !r!cterised by deco)$osin% !nd t en reco)$osin% (in D!>is 1983: 303) C 5dissection !nd !rticu(!tion7 of (30/) C t e re!(< su%%est ! de$!rture fro) t e t en6current >oc!bu(!ry of unity< con>er%ence< !nd syste)!ticity. & e str!te%y of re>ersin% ! $re)ise t !t !s !c;uired -ide critic!( !cce$t!nce !nd turnin% it into t e st!rtin% $oint for ! different !$$ro!c !(so !ntici$!tes deconstruction. 4urt er)ore< is sce$ticis) of o>er-or@ed ter)ino(o%ies< t e e!sy cert!inties of deter)inis)< mimesis in !rt< !nd t e se$!r!tion of criticis) fro) !rt !(on% t e (ine of 5f!bric!tin% )e!nin%7 (305)< :::i> $oints to t e f!ct t !t e -!s !(re!dy $re$!rin% is de$!rture fro) t e for)!(ist tr!dition. .is descri$tion of t e structur!(ist !cti>ity in f!ct is re)!r@!b(y si)i(!r to Q!c;ues Derrid!=s (!ter !tte)$t to e:$(!in to is Q!$!nese friend t e )e!nin% of deconstruction. In is 5Letter to ! Q!$!nese 4riend<7 Derrid!< too< insists first on - !t deconstruction is not (5neit er !n analysis nor ! criti5ue<7 not ! method< 5not e>en !n act or !n operation7 C 1991: 273)< !nd e>entu!((y %r!nts it t e st!tus of ! sy)$to) of our -or(d (!(t ou% e refuses to !ssi%n it to !n e$oc ) (27/)< ! sy)$to) of )odernity=s need to t!@e itse(f to $ieces !nd t en reconstruct itse(f (272).:::> & e str!te%y of deconstruction !s de>ised by Derrid!< (i@e its (non6)definition< re(ies< !s in ?!rt es< on S!ussure!n $!r!di%)!tic c !ins !nd t e differenti!( n!ture of (!n%u!%e t !t $er)its )ini)!( $er)ut!tions to endo- t e te:t

Part T1o

11,

-it ne-< yet ne>er fin!( or tot!(< )e!nin%s. ?ot deconstruction !nd structur!(is) !re b!sed on t e S!ussure!n reco%nition t !t )e!nin% is de$endent on difference -it in ! c(osed syste). & e )!in distinction is t !t t e for)er finds it -it in e!c e(e)ent of t e series< !nd not on(y bet-een e(e)ents. In ?!rt es< on t e ot er !nd< t e 5so>erei%n )otor $rinci$(e7 is sti(( 5t !t of t e s)!((est difference7 -it in t e 5reser>oir7 or 5>irtu!( %rou$7 (i.e.< $!r!di%)!tic c !in) (30/). & e si)i(!rities in r etoric !)ount to !n e;u!tion in - ic t e un@no-n e(e)ent is t e s$ecific difference of deconstruction< su%%estin% ! direct descent. & e structur!(ist re(i!nce on t e @no-!b(e syste)!ticity of t e )!teri!( -or(d is re$(!ced< in $oststructur!(ist t in@in%< by ! r!dic!( sce$ticis) of definiti>e %r!nd n!rr!ti>es< istory< !est etics< !nd identity inc(uded. & e deconstructi>e inter>ention !s$ires $recise(y !t t e $roduction of ne-< su$$(e)ent!ry )e!nin%s !nd n!rr!ti>es. & e interro%!tion of t e (i)it!tions of (!n%u!%e t !t in eres in it is !@in to ?!rt es= Ioyous -e(co)in% of ne- (!n%u!%es t !t -i(( s$e!@ t e critic !nd co)$(ete is -or@ by in>itin% furt er discussion !round it (in D!>is 1983: 303). & e r etoric of is ess!y is !(re!dy infor)ed by !n underst!ndin% t !t -!s to c !r!cterise deconstruction: )e!nin% is fund!)ent!((y differenti!( !nd $ro>ision!(< - i(e (!n%u!%e s$e!@s us e>en !s -e in !bit it. In 5& e Structur!(ist *cti>ity7 ?!rt es= )et!(!n%u!%e st!rts ! tr!dition of se(f6ref(ecti>e (iter!ry t eory - ic !$$ro$ri!tes t e >oc!bu(!ry !s -e(( !s t e findin%s of (in%uistics. Si)i(!r !ntecedents of deconstruction c!n be found e(se- ere in t e different !>!t!rs of for)!(is)< of - ic structur!(is) is one !nd 2e- "riticis) is !not er. It !s been !r%ued t !t deconstruction descends in ! str!i% t (ine fro) Liber!( .u)!nis) !nd for)!(is) - ic !re $!rt of ! conc!ten!tion of $ i(oso$ ic!( br!nc es t !t inc(ude !est etics< et ics !nd t e $ i(oso$ y of istory< t e sources of t e )ost i)$ort!nt o$er!ti>e ter)s of $oststructur!(is).:::>i In t is connection< t e critic!( unco>erin% of differences -it in t e te:t !dds ! ne- di)ension to t e $!r!di%)!tic bre!@do-n of t e c(!ssic!( n!ture6nurture distinction bet-een t e !rtistic !nd t e critic!( te:t discussed by D!>is (1983: 3). 2ot on(y is t e critic!( te:t one )ore te:t -!itin% its turn to be inter$reted< but t e (iter!ry te:t itse(f e:$oses its f!u(t (ines !nd se!)s to t e discernin% eye. & e ()et!)te:t=s ro(e is t us )ere(y to indic!te t e ot er te:t=s difference fro) itse(f: t e critic!( dist!nce it $uts bet-een - !t it s!ys !nd - !t it does< !s de #!n obser>ed< or t e defer)ent of )e!nin% t !t in eres in t e tension bet-een its different )e!nin%s< !s Derrid! -ou(d !>e it. & e return to t e te:t< t en< is ! rere!din% of $re>ious re!din%s -it ! difference< !nd t e difference is diff=rance C bot dissi)i(!rity !nd deferr!(. It is !(so ! return to structur!(is) (!nd t e S!ussure!n (in%uistics be ind it) -it ! difference C t e 5$ost7 t !t $recedes it. It is e;u!((y ! return to .eide%%er=s !nd 2ietEsc e=s $ i(oso$ y< to 4reud< L!c!n< !nd L_>i6 Str!uss< !nd to #!r:. Its !(()!r@s !re t e o$enin% u$ of disci$(in!ry bound!ries !nd t e freein% of t e te:t fro) t e bounds of conte:ts !nd )e!nin%s< so t !t it c!n be re6conte:tu!(ised !nd reinter$reted e>er !ne-. Its $ri)!ry obIecti>e is t e !tt!c@ on tr!dition!( ier!rc isin% re(!tions suc !s t !t bet-een s$eec !nd -ritin%< !nd t e recu$er!tion of t e $ri)!cy of -ritin% !s (!n%u!%e8 te:t< ! $rost etic for

11-

Part T1o

)e)ory< !nd ! )ost effecti>e )ec !nis) for $roducin%< !nd distortin%< )e!nin%. Li@e L!c!ni!n $syc o!n!(ysis< deconstruction fo((o-s t e infinite re%ress of ori%ins on(y to s o-< e>entu!((y< t !t t ere !re no ori%ins< or t !t t e ori%ins !re e(se- ere. & e unconscious of t e te:t co)es under scrutiny in order to re>e!( t e difference -it in. & e inter$(!y of $resence< !bsence< !nd tr!ce re$(!ces t e o(der be(ief in - !t Derrid! re$e!ted(y c !stises !s t e Western 5)et!$ ysics of $resence7 (in 0i>@in K 0y!n 3976/03< in D!>is 1983: /82) !nd (e!ds to ! r!dic!( uncert!inty t !t reIoices in t e defer)ent of )e!nin%< t e c!nce((in% out of centres< !nd t e ensuin% $er$etu!( n!rr!tion. & e s ift in t e centre=s (oc!tion is one of t e essenti!( conce$ts of $oststructur!(is) !nd one of its )!in or%!nisin% )et!$ ors. & e re(e>!nt Derride!n te:t is one of t e (!nd)!r@s in t e istory of deconstruction< 5Structure< Si%n !nd '(!y in t e Discourse of t e .u)!n Sciences.7 & ere< !s e(se- ere< Derrid! sou% t to subIect t e $ro>ince of $ i(oso$ y to !n !n!(ysis t !t t!@es t e S!ussure!n !nd L_>i6Str!ussi!n debun@in% of t e )yt of uni>ers!( co erence !nd tot!(is!tion to un!ccusto)ed (en%t s. 0!t er t !n tot!(is!tion< Derrid! s o-s< t e -or(d is %o>erned by free$(!y< tension< !nd 0ousse!u>i!n c!t!stro$ e< !(t ou% structure !nd co erence c!nnot be definiti>e(y dis)issed. *s e $uts it< t e )!tter of t e c oice bet-een t e 5t-o inter$ret!tions of inter$ret!tion< of structure< of si%n< of free$(!y7 is tri>i!( (in D!>is 1983: /9263): - !t is essenti!( is t e e:istence of !(tern!ti>es !nd t e !-!reness of t e diff=rance t !t )!@es si%nific!tion $ossib(e. & is undecid!bi(ity< !(on% -it te:tu!(ity !nd str!te%y< !re t e issues -it t e %re!test i)$!ct on (iter!ry t eory !nd criticis). & e !dIecti>e )ost fre;uent(y used to ;u!(ify suc re>ers!(s !nd reinscri$tions is 5$(!yfu(<7 ! -ord )e!nt to su%%est not on(y t e r!dic!((y disru$ti>e intention!(ity of deconstruction< but !(so its !((e%i!nce to 2ietEsc e!n ide!(s of sub>ersion. Into is criti;ue of t e bin!ries !nd $ieties of Western )et!$ ysics< 2ietEsc e infi(tr!ted t e sus$icion t !t $er !$s !rt !nd r!tion!(is) -ere in f!ct )ere(y t-o different -!ys of usin% (!n%u!%e. 9(ti)!te(y< 0i>@in !nd 0y!n e:$(!in< !ccordin% to 2ietEsc e< 5!rt )!@es @no-(ed%e $ossib(e. &rue @no-ers !re su$re)e f!bric!torsG t e !est etic c!nnot be se$!r!ted fro) t e e$iste)ic7 (350). In 5+n &rut !nd Lyin%7 !nd e(se- ere< t e $ i(oso$ er indicts con>ention!( )or!(ity !(on%side t e e!sy !cce$t!nce of - !t society dis es out !s trut < but - ic in f!ct is no )ore t !n 5! )obi(e !r)y of )et!$ ors< )etony)ies< !nd !nt ro$o)or$ is)s7 (in 0i>@in K 0y!n 359). &rut is ne>er in erent in t in%s but is r!t er ! soci!( construct t !t )ust be $eriodic!((y c !((en%ed if it is to be of !ny >!(ue to u)!n cu(ture. W !t )!n does not re!(ise< 2ietEsc e bitter(y su%%ests< is t !t< by for%ettin% t e n!ture of 5trut 7 uncondition!((y< e is i)$(icit(y denyin% C !(on%side is o-n subIecti>ity !nd indi>idu!(ity C is !rtistic!((y cre!ti>e $otenti!(ities< e>en !s e uses t e) (33061). 2ietEsc e=s 5$(!yfu(ness<7 t en< (i@e Derrid!=s< is of !n e:tre)e seriousness< !i)in% !t not in% s ort of dis$(!cin% t e >ery found!tions of !ut ority. * si)i(!r !i)< !(t ou% $ursued -it different )e!ns< c !r!cterises t e -or@ of t !t ot er )!Ior t in@er of $oststructur!(is)< #ic e( 4ouc!u(t. .is )!in contribution is t e e:$osure of t e 5$er>ersity7 of $o-er: t e do)in!nt c(!ss

Part T1o

11+

ensures its contro( o>er discourse for >ery s$ecific re!sons< - ic !re 5$er>erse7 in t !t not on(y does $o-er s !$e re!son< but it !(so cre!tes t e c!te%ories it c(!i)s to dis!>o- by n!)in% !nd circu)scribin% t e)< !nd it does so in order to Iustify )ore sur>ei((!nce< contro( !nd o>erdeter)in!tion (in Leitc 2001: 13/1 passim). 4ouc!u(t s$e!@s !bout $o-er !s 5$roducti>e<7 by - ic e )e!ns t !t it cre!tes soci!( c!te%ories by in>entin% re!sons - y $eo$(e s ou(d be set !$!rt fro) t e ot ers< by de>isin% notions of nor)!(ity !nd tr!ns%ression. & e )ost i)$ort!nt too( !t t e dis$os!( of $o-er< t en< is discourse< - ic is e)$(oyed in order to con>ince $eo$(e of t e ri% teousness of t e syste) (!s it did !ccordin% to t e #!r:ists). #oreo>er< it is in>ested -it t e function of Or!tion!(isin%= !nd Onor)!(isin%= re!(ity< of s !$in% - !t c!n or c!nnot be s!id< !nd t us - !t c!n or c!nnot be t ou% t< !nd of $(!cin% e)$ !sis on s$ecific issues t !t !re cruci!( to $o-er=s !d)inistr!tion !nd cont!in)ent of t e -or(d. #ore i)$ort!nt t !n t e intention to under)ine t e est!b(is )ent< Derrid! !nd 4ouc!u(t !(so s !re ! @indred co)$re ension of t e f!u(t (ines !(on% - ic criti;ue is $ossib(e. & ey bot underst!nd t e ideo(o%ic!( n!ture !nd uses of discourse< !nd ;uestion t e istoric!( $rocesses t rou% - ic its constructedness !s been obscured. Derrid! s o-s t !t (!n%u!%e is ! syste) of e:c(usions< e:ce$tions< incon%ruities< contr!dictions< tensionsG t !t cert!in )e!nin%s !>e been $ri>i(e%ed !t t e e:$ense of ot ers< t !t cert!in c oices !>e been )!de t !t !>e ob(iter!ted (!n%u!%e=s fu(( $otenti!( for si%nific!tion. 4ouc!u(t $erfor)s !n !rc !eo(o%ic!( e:c!>!tion of e>idence of t e forces !t $(!y !nd t e %!ins !t st!@e in )!@in% t ose c oices. & ey !re Ioined in t is $reoccu$!tion by t-o ot er )!Ior t eoretici!ns of discursi>e )ec !nis)s< Qu(i! Jriste>! !nd '!u( de #!n< - o focus on $rocesses of si%nific!tion !nd t e i((ocution!ry force of (!n%u!%e< res$ecti>e(y. *d)itted(y< 4ouc!u(t=s $rotoco( is of ! r!t er sin%u(!r $ersu!sion !nd runs !%!inst so)e of deconstruction=s fund!)ent!( $re)ises C )ost not!b(y ?!rt es= 5de!t of t e !ut or.7 Fet is $!rti!( reinst!te)ent of t e -ritin% subIect !s ! function of discourse is centr!( to $robin% t e ro(e !nd et ics of 5t e initi!tion of discursi>e $r!ctices7 (1977: 133) in !rticu(!tin% t e under(yin% !ssu)$tions of t e society be ind t e 5!ut or6function7 (137)< !s -e(( !s in e:$osin% t e %!$s< o)issions !nd distortions t !t )!@e $ossib(e ! 5return to t e !ct of initi!tion7 (135)< t !t !cti>e(y tr!nsfor) t e te:t into ! discursi>e $r!ctice. 4ouc!u(t=s is ! )uc )ore en%!%ed !$$ro!c to (!n%u!%e !nd discourse< - ic re>e!(s bot t e diffusion of $o-er t rou% discourse !nd t e )e!ns for counter!ctin% its concrete soci!( !ut ority. In t eir introduction to t e section on 5'ost6Structur!(is)< Deconstruction !nd 'ost6#odernis)<7 it is $recise(y t e (!st connection t !t 0i>@in !nd 0y!n insist on. In t eir >ie-< t e ne- de>e(o$)ents in 4renc $ i(oso$ y !nd cu(tur!( studies !re ine:or!b(y re(!ted to t e 1938 student )o>e)ent in '!ris< !nd t eir co)$endiu) of 5- !t )i% t be c!((ed ! O%ener!( $ro%r!)= of 'ost6Structur!(is)7 is t erefore described in o$$osition!( ter)s:
!%!inst )e!nin%< fi%ur!tion< !%!inst ri%id structure< free $(!y< !%!inst conce$tu!(ity< t e resist!nce of t e obIect< !%!inst identity< end(ess difference< !%!inst identity !%!in< t e

120

Part T1o
re(!tion to t e ot er in %ener!(< !%!inst )!@in% sense< t e )!@in% sense of sense by non6sense< !%!inst uni>ers!(ity< t e irreducib(e sin%u(!rity of t e e>ent< !%!inst si%nific!tion< si%nific!tory )u(ti$(icity !nd e:cess< !%!inst re$resent!tion concei>ed !s t e e)bodi)ent of )e!nin%< t e s!)e re$resent!tion concei>ed !s ! $er$etu!( (efto>er - ic c!n ne>er beco)e t e ot er -it in ! bin!ry o$$osition!( order of )e!nin% -it out %ener!tin% one )ore re$resent!tion (fore>er outside t e se)!ntic order)N. *nd so on. (351)

In ot er -ords< $oststructur!(is) turns !%!inst e>eryt in% it returns to. In t e 9nited St!tes:::>ii t e !do$tion of deconstruction -!s f!ci(it!ted by ! buddin% distrust of 2e- "riticis)< t e critic!( sc oo( t !t !d stood *)eric! in %ood ste!d of bot for)!(is) !nd structur!(is). *s in 4r!nce< t e !d>ent of deconstruction -!s connected -it soci!( )o>e)ents in t e (!te 1930s !nd t e 1970s !nd ! reorient!tion to-!rds t e $o(itic!( (eft< (e!>in% be ind t e ri% t6s(!ntin% conser>!tis) of t e *%r!ri!ns !nd 2e- "ritics. +f deconstruction=s initi!( su$$orters !t F!(e 9ni>ersity< '!u( de #!n !nd Q. .i((is #i((er re)!ined f!it fu( to its $ro$ositions< - ere!s .!ro(d ?(oo) !nd Heoffrey .!rt)!n !>e occ!sion!((y -ritten !%!inst it. #!ny ot ers !>e !ssi)i(!ted its )et ods !nd ter)ino(o%y to !$$ro!c es t !t re)!in essenti!((y $syc o!n!(ytic< #!r:ist or istoricist in t rust. W !t distin%uis es *)eric!n deconstructi>e criticis) re)!ins o-e>er its !)bi%uous re(!tion to 2e- "riticis). De #!n !c@no-(ed%ed t e contribution of 2e- "riticis)=s insistence on or%!nic for)< $!r!do:< !nd irony to t e ne!-!reness of - !t 0ic !rd 0orty c!((s 5t e se(f6unr!>e((in% of (iter!ry te:ts7 (in Se(den 177).:::>iii Q. .i((is #i((er e:$osed t e se(f6defe!tin% n!ture of t e 2e- "ritic!( $rotoco(< - ereby t e ide!( of or%!nic unity -!s rendered un!tt!in!b(e by t e free $(!y of sub>ersi>e !)bi%uities !nd ironies (in D!>is 1983: /25)G one )i% t s!y t !t t e tensions in erent in its $rinci$(es (ed to its do-nf!((. *(on% si)i(!r (ines< Don!(d J!rti%!ner re)!r@s t !t es$eci!((y in t e study of )odernist (iter!ture 2e- "ritic!( !tte)$ts to find $!tterns !nd co erence !re )et -it resist!nce by t e n!ture of t e )odernist (iter!ry $roIect< - ic fore%rounds !nd dr!)!tises t e $rocess of !n e)er%in% $!ttern or for) r!t er t !n t e for) itse(f (1979: :>6>i). 1(se- ere< J!rti%!ner s o-s t !t it -!s t e 2e- "ritics - o $ointed u$ t e constructedness of (!n%u!%e< !(on%side t e criti;ue< in erent in t e -or@=s !est etic iso(!tion< of t e -or(d of e>eryd!y concerns !nd soci!( inIustice (200082001: 8869). 4or St!n(ey 4is < on t e contr!ry< %ettin% 2e- "riticis)=s 5dis!b(in% o$$osition bet-een te:ts !nd t eir cu(tur!( conte:ts7 out of t e -!y -!s deconstruction=s %re!test !c ie>e)ent (;td. in Se(den 18/). 2e>ert e(ess< it is not so e!sy to dis)iss 2e- "riticis): its c(ose re!din% )et od !s beco)e suc !n inte%r!ti>e $!rt of *)eric!n educ!tion t !t criti;ue c!n ne>er succeed unti( !n e;u!((y efficient )et od c!n su$ersede it. Its stron%est o(d on t e *)eric!n )ind< o-e>er< is %i>en by !n i)$(ic!tion t !t in $ro$osin% to offer !n underst!ndin% of (iter!ry e:$ressions of n!tion!( identity< it !(so offered !n underst!ndin% of t !t identity< !n !ssu)$tion t !t !s been recyc(ed by $oststructur!(is) (see "!rton K Hr!ff 305). 4ro) t e 1uro$e!n $ers$ecti>e< on t e ot er !nd< 2e- "riticis) is f!r fro) re$resentin% ! )!Ior t re!t to recent

Part T1o

121

re!din%s. *ndrV ?(ei@!sten be(ie>es t !t not on(y does it no (on%er )ono$o(ise t e conte)$or!ry critic!( scene< but t ere !re ot er< ne-er critic!( sc oo(s - ic tend to re$(!ce its $ieties -it t eir e;u!((y do%)!tic o$$osites (in J!rti%!ner K *b!die 8610). & e seeds of ! criti;ue of deconstruction< too< !re $resent in t e ?!rt es ;uote t !t ser>es !s e$i%r!$ for t is c !$ter. +ne (ine of criti;ue $ostu(!tes t !t deconstruction=s $ro(ifer!tion of s$eci!(ised ter)ino(o%y !nd inter>ention does no )ore t !n c!)ouf(!%e t e >ery serious $rob(e)s !t t e roots of Western cu(ture t !t it $ur$orts to e:$ose. *not er is t e !((e%!tion t !t it t-ists )e!nin% so !s to obt!in t e desired resu(ts. So)e of t is criticis) co)es fro) t e (eft of t e $o(itic!( s$ectru)< - ere deconstruction is re%!rded !s bein% insufficient(y en%!%ed -it t e soci!( issues - ic (ed to its ince$tion in #!y 1938 !nd )!ny of - ic !>e $ersisted. In t e fie(d of $ i(oso$ y< t e *)eric!n tr!dition of $r!%)!tis)< )ost >oc!((y re$resented by 0ic !rd 0orty< !s subIected deconstruction to se>ere criticis) for its refus!( to !c@no-(ed%e t e referenti!(ity of (!n%u!%e. 0orty !(so indicts t e f!ci(ity -it - ic deconstruction=s )et od !s been !$$ro$ri!ted in t e !c!de)e !s ! )e!ns of $roducin% 5)!c ine6$rocessed (iter!ry critic!( ess!ys7 (in 0!%% 373). I)$(icit(y< t is is ! criti;ue of t e et ics of t e disci$(inis!tion of (iter!ry studies< - ic !s cre!ted t e need !nd t e foru) for turnin% bot $ i(oso$ y !nd (iter!ry criticis) into ! $oo( of educ!tion!( )et ods< -it inc!(cu(!b(e resu(ts for t e inter$ret!tion of (iter!ture. #oreo>er< 2e- "riticis) !s reci$roc!ted deconstruction=s c !r%es by !tt!c@in% t e (!tter=s refus!( to yie(d str!i% tfor-!rd inter$ret!tions !nd definiti>e criteri! of >!(ue. Derrid!< ?!rb!r! Qo nson< 2i%e( #!$$ !nd ot ers insist t !t t e deconstructi>e inter>ention st!rts fro) ! dee$ 5res$ect for t e te:t !t !nd< !nd for t e ter)s of underst!ndin% t !t it (!ys do-n7 (#!$$ 777). & is is one of t e et ic!( $rinci$(es t !t set deconstruction !$!rt fro) t e critic!( tr!dition. *not er is its e:c(usi>e $reoccu$!tion -it underst!ndin% !nd @no-(ed%e< in utter disre%!rd of t e institution!( uses t !t c!n be )!de of t !t underst!ndin%. Fet deconstruction !s t eorised by Derrid! is u(ti)!te(y unten!b(e: e -!nted it not to beco)e ! )et od of (iter!ry in>esti%!tion< but to re)!in ! $ost6$ i(oso$ ic!( )ode of t in@in% !bout t e conte)$or!ry -or(d !nd t e te:ts t !t constitute its cu(ture. "on>erse(y< t ere is ! sense< s !red by bot deconstructionists !nd critics of ot er deno)in!tions< t !t deconstruction is better (eft !(one< for< t e )o)ent it is O!$$ro$ri!ted= !nd O!cti>!ted<= it does beco)e ! )et od< !n !$$ro!c < ! t eory C it turns !%!inst itse(f !nd into !not er >!ri!nt of structur!(is). It beco)es ! %rid< ! fr!)e-or@< !n in>esti%!ti>e instru)ent t !t c!n be de$(oyed >ery $r!%)!tic!((y< $ut to -or@ -it !n eye to $roducin% (!(beit $ro>ision!() !ns-ers !nd Otrut s.= & e o$$osite >ie-< f!>oured by deconstruction< is t !t )e!nin% is ! function of n!rr!tion: by te((in% t e story< one in>ests it -it >!(ue. 0e!din% (i.e.< inter$ret!tion) is !not er for) of te((in%< !not er O(iter!ry= %enre: n!rr!ti>es breed )ore n!rr!ti>es. Fet t e eff!ce)ent of t e distinction bet-een (iter!ry te:t !nd critic!( inter$ret!tion t re!tens to c(ose t e door on t e (!tter: if no u(ti)!te )e!nin% is !tt!in!b(e< t en criticis) is )ere(y ! er)eneutic $er$etu!tion of

122

Part T1o

(!n%u!%e. *nd if inter$ret!tion is i)$ossib(e< ! n!rr!ti>e )et od (i@e s!y< Wi((i!) 4!u(@ner=s or Q!)es Qoyce=s< - ic $roduces re>isions !nd re-ritin%s in t e for) of ne- boo@s or of di!(o%ised stories -it in t e s!)e boo@< is !not er s$ecies of er)eneutics< - i(e forcefu((y co(onisin% t e territory of fiction. & is %eneric i)$!sse< - ereby te:ts )i%r!te free(y fro) one discursi>e fie(d to !not er< c!nnot be sur$!ssed. *nd it is one of deconstruction=s fund!)ent!( $re)ises t !t it s ou(d not be o>erco)e< but r!t er re!cti>!ted< !s tension< -it e>ery ne- re!din% C ! re)inder of its o-n se(f6resist!nce< - ic is !(so its et ics. In $ i(oso$ ic!( ter)s< t is circ(in% !round c!te%ories t !t frees )e!nin% r!t er t !n reso(>e it tr!ns(!tes into t e s$ecific difference of deconstruction itse(f. In is discussion of centre !nd )!r%in in structur!(is) !nd $oststructur!(is)< Ste$ en "onnor r!ises !n i)$ort!nt issue in connection -it t e et ics of deconstruction. In t e s!)e bre!t < !s it -ere< !s e defines $oststructur!(is) !s ! de$!rture fro) t e centr!(ity of centres< "onnor !(so !s@s t e essenti!( ;uestion< 5if t is c!n be seen !s bre!@in% !-!y fro) t e %r!>it!tion!( $u(( of t e centre< t en - !t !re -e to )!@e of t e co)$u(si>e orbitin% !round t is >ery conce$t6)et!$ or in $ost6structur!(ist criticis)< e>en in its str!te%ies of decentrin%D7 ("onnor 73367). & e !ns-er< !ccordin% to "onnor< is t-ofo(d< !nd it !s to do -it t e f!ct t !t t is e$iste)o(o%ic!( $reoccu$!tion !s )o>ed in t-o di>er%ent directions< deconstruction !nd $oststructur!(is)< of - ic t e for)er is often re%!rded !s ! f!ction of t e (!tter. Ste>en "onnor e:$(!ins:
We c!n s!y t !t< - ere $ost6structur!(is) edonistic!((y !tte)$ts to $roc(!i) !bso(ute centre(essness !%!inst t e re$ressi>e creed of t e centre< deconstruction !tte)$ts to t in@ its -!y t rou% !nd $er !$s out of t e >ery structure of centre !nd )!r%in. So< in deconstruction t e $oint is not si)$(y to !ffir) t e )!r%in !%!inst t e centreG !s Qon!t !n "u((er e:$(!ins< 5re>ers!(< !ttributin% i)$ort!nce to t e )!r%in!(< is usu!((y conducted in suc ! -!y t !t it does not (e!d si)$(y to t e identific!tion of ! necentreNbut to ! sub>ersion of t e distinctions bet-een essenti!( !nd inessenti!(< inside !nd outside. W !t is ! centre if t e )!r%in!( c!n beco)e centr!(D7 (7/5):::i:

& us< deconstruction refuses to ser>e !ny syste) of >!(ues - ic ens rines ! cert!in $o-er distribution< but indic!tes inste!d t e fund!)ent!( structure of et icsG in '!u( de #!n=s $ r!se< deconstruction is indeed ! discourse of se(f6resist!nce< one - ic refuses to con%e!( into doctrine or e>en t eory. .ence< it is not ! ni i(istic enter$rise< in t !t it does not deny t e e:istence of >!(ue !nd )e!nin%< but its $ri)!ry concern is -it - !t t ere is in (!n%u!%e8 te:t t !t c!n constitute so )!ny )e!nin%s< )u(ti$(e !nd !)bi%uous< !nd t en under)ine t e). W i(e turnin% it into ! $o-erfu( str!te%y in $ i(oso$ y !nd (iter!ry t eory< its se(f6resist!nce !s< !ccordin% to "onnor< rendered deconstruction ineffecti>e in cu(tur!( studies. :( ?esides t e usefu( e$iste)o(o%ic!( distinction bet-een t e t-o currents< t is st!te)ent !(so !s t e )erit of su%%estin% t !t in its rebe((ion !%!inst centres< $oststructur!(is) e)br!ces ! o(istic >ie- of t eory !s -e(( !nd conse;uent(y it !s !d ! (!r%er fo((o-in%. & e r!dius of its inf(uence co>ers orient!tions !s di>erse !s fe)inis)< $ost6#!r:is)< $ost6co(oni!(is)< !nd %!y studies. 0i>@in !nd 0y!n

Part T1o

12"

e:$(!in t !t 5AiBn 1979< 'ost6Structur!(is) c !n%ed n!)es< but< !s !ny 'ost6 Structur!(ist -i(( te(( you< - en n!)es c !n%e< t in%s c !n%e7 (352). & e nen!)e -!s $ost)odernis)< !n o(d ter) t !t -!s in t !t ye!r recyc(ed !nd %i>en ! ne- >!rnis in% by Qe!n64r!nZois Lyot!rd in is boo@ The Postmodern Condition& A ,eport on (no1ledge. Jne((-o(f !nd 2orris< o-e>er< dr!- ! distinction bet-een - !t t ey c!(( r!dic!( 5$ost)odernist sce$ticis)7 !nd 5O(eft= $oststructur!(ist t eory7 (2)< t us de)onstr!tin% t !t t e deb!te o>er ter)ino(o%y is sti(( o$en. +n t e ot er !nd< es$eci!((y in recent ye!rs $oststructur!(is) !s !c;uired ! )ore s$eci!(ised< $ost6#!r:ist connot!tion< - i(e 5$ost)odernis)7 co)es to enco)$!ss t e conte)$or!ry condition. *ccordin% to 0i>@in !nd 0y!n< Lyot!rd=s 1979 boo@ e($s to su$$(!nt 5$oststructur!(is)7 in its bro!dest sense -it !n !(tern!ti>e< e;u!((y co)$re ensi>e !$$ro!c to t e conte)$or!ry -or(d t !t rec!sts 2ietEsc e< Derrid! !nd 4ouc!u(t in t e !%e of cor$or!te business. 0i>@in !nd 0y!n cite Lyot!rd=s contention t !t 5! criterion of scientific !nd econo)ic $erfor)!ti>ity !nd usefu(ness !nd tec nic!(8 econo)ic effecti>eness !s re$(!ced t e o(d r!tion!(ist ide!( of ! (e%iti)!tin% )et!(!n%u!%e< !nd it is (in@ed to t e %ro-in% $o-er of cor$or!tions7 (352). "onse;uent(y< t e $resent ti)e is one of - !t Lyot!rd c!((s e(se- ere 5differends<7 5situ!tions of discussion t !t !re irreso(>!b(e. 2o conc(usion or si)$(e Iud%e)ent t !t ter)in!tes discussion !nd !r%u)ent c!n be !c ie>ed7 (353)< not e>en in t e re!()s of Iustice !nd et ics. 2or !re conc(usions !nd Iud%e)ents desir!b(e< since t ey !>e t e effect of !scribin% )e!nin% !nd c!te%ories to - !te>er t ey !re $ronounced on< t us )!@in% re!(ity dis!$$e!r be ind t e n!)e. Inste!d< t e ;uestion s ou(d be (eft o$en !nd t e discussion8 n!rr!tion be eit er !((o-ed to continue or be $ut !n end to by res$ectfu( si(ence !nd non6re$resent!tion (353). In Lyot!rd=s t eory< t en< t e criti;ue of deconstruction is te)$or!ri(y !$$e!sed: if deconstruction does not $ro$ose fe!sib(e reso(utions for t e crisis of t e conte)$or!ry -or(d< it is bec!use t ere !re no fin!( conc(usions.

12/

Part T1o

2otes:

$ibliogra%hy
Abra3s, 4.5. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 6(rt 7(rth# 5arc(urt Brace 8(van(vich 9(llege Publishers, 1++". Abra3s, 4.5. et al., eds. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 2th editi(n. :(l. 1 and 2. *e; <(r= and L(nd(n# 7.7. *(rt(n and 9(., 01+221 1++". Allen, 7alter. Tradition and Dream. The English and American Novel from the Twenties to Our Time. L(nd(n# >he 5(garth Press, 1+-2. Als(?, @ere= and 9hris 7alsh. The Practice of Reading. nter!reting the Novel . 5(und3ills and L(nd(n# 4ac3illan Press, 1+++. Bald;in, Anna and Sarah 5utt(n, eds. Platonism and the English maginary . 9a3bridge U.P., 1++2. Barry, Peter. "eginning Theory. An introduction to literary and cultural theory. 4anchester and *e; <(r=# 4anchester U.P., 1++.. ---. English in Practice. n Pursuit of English #tudies. L(nd(n# Arn(ld, 200". Barthes, A(land. &>he @eath (B the Auth(r' 01+2-1. mage$ %usic$ Te&t. >rans. S. 5eath. *e; <(r=# 5ill and 7ang, 1+,,. 1/2-/-. Bate, 7.8. Prefaces to 'riticism. *e; <(r=# @(ubleday Anch(r B((=s, 1+.+. Baudrillard, 8ean. &>he Pr(cessi(n (B Si3ulacra.' Leitch 2001. 1,"2-/1. Bay3, *ina et al., eds. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. /th editi(n. :(l. 1. *e; <(r= C L(nd(n# 7.7. *(rt(n C 9(., 1++/. Bate, 7.8. Prefaces to 'riticism. *e; <(r=# @(ubleday Anch(r B((=s, 1+.+. Bear, Aichard. &)ntr(ducti(n' t( Sir Phili? SidneyDs &@eBence (B P(esie.' 4arch 1++.. University (B Ereg(n. Se?te3ber 1++,. htt?#//eFtra.shu.ac.u=/e3ls/ie3ls/res(ur/3irr(rs/rbear/deBence.ht3l .
Belsey, 9atherine. &Aeading and 9ritical Practice.' 'ritical (uarterly /.."# 22-"1.

Berc(vitch, Sacvan. &A3erica as 9an(n and 9(nteFt# Literary 5ist(ry in a >i3e (B @issensus.' American Literature .-.1 04arch 1+-21# ++-10,. Berc(vitch, Sacvan, gen. ed. The 'am)ridge *istory of American Literature. :(l. SiF# Prose +riting$ ,-,./,-0., :(l. Seven# Prose +riting$ ,-1./,--., :(l. !ight# Poetry and 'riticism$ ,-1./,--0. 9a3bridge U.P., 2002, 1+++, 01++21 200", res?ectively. Blac=3ur, A.P. 2orm and 3alue in %odern Poetry. Garden 9ity, *.<.# @(ubleday, 1+.,. ---. Language as Gesture. *e; <(r=# 5arc(urt, Brace, 1+.2. Bla3ires, 5arry. A *istory of Literary 'riticism. 4ac3illan, 1++1. Bl((3, 5ar(ld. The An&iety of nfluence. A Theory of Poetry. *e; <(r=# EFB(rd U.P., 1+,". B((th, 7ayne 9. The Rhetoric of 2iction. 9hicag( and L(nd(n# >he U. (B 9hicag( P., 1+-". B(rrad(ri, Gi(vanna. Philoso!hy in a Time of Terror. nterviews with 45rgen *a)ermas and 4ac6ues Derrida. 9hicag( and L(nd(n# >he U. (B 9hicag( P., 200". Bradbury, 4alc(l3, ed. The Novel Today. 'ontem!orary +riters on %odern 2iction. 4anchester# 4anchester U.P., 1+,-. Br((=s, @avid. &4(dernis3.' 9(yle et al. 11+-"0. 9$linescu, 4atei. &4(dernis3 and )de(l(gy.' %odernism7 'hallenges and Pers!ectives .

122

!d. by 4(niHue 9heBd(r, Aicard( Iuin(nes and Albert 7achtel. Urbana and 9hicag(# U. (B )llin(is P., 1+-2. ,+-+". 9enuJer, @idi-)(nel. Notes on Eli8a)ethan 'riticism. Sibiu# Lucian Blaga U.P., 2001. ---. Notes on English 'riticism. Sibiu# Al3a 4ater, 2001. 9lar=, A(bert. &A3erican A(3ance.' 9(yle et al. .,2---. 9(nn(r, Steven. &Structuralis3 and the P(st-Structuralis3# 6r(3 the 9entre t( the 4argin.' 9(yle et al. ,"2-,/+. 9(rniJ-P(?e, 4arcel. The 9nfinished "attles. Romanian Postmodernism )efore and after ,-:-. )aJi# P(lir(3, 1++2. 9(rns, >h(3as *., ed. The 'am)ridge 'om!anion to English Poetry7 Donne to %arvell. 9a3bridge U.P., 1++/. 9(yle, 4artin, Peter Garside, 4alc(l3 Kelsall, and 8(hn Pec=, eds. Encyclo!edia of Literature and 'riticism. @etr(it and *e; <(r=# Gale Aesearch )nc., 1++1. 9udd(n, 8.A. Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory . "rd editi(n. L(nd(n# Penguin B((=s, 1++1. 9uller, 8(nathan. Literary Theory7 A 3ery #hort ntroduction . EFB(rd# EFB(rd Pa?erbac=s, 2000. 9urrie, 4ar=. Postmodern Narrative Theory. L(nd(n# 4ac3illan, 1++-. @aiches, @avid. 'ritical A!!roaches to Literature. L(nd(n# L(ng3ans, Green and 9(. Ltd., 01+.21 1+2/. @aniels(n, @ennis, ed. The 'am)ridge 'om!anion to 4ohn %ilton. 9a3bridge U.P., 1++/. @avis, A(bert 9(n. 'ontem!orary Literary 'riticism7 %odernism Through Post/ #tructuralism. *e; <(r= and L(nd(n# L(ng3an, 1+-2. @avis, A(bert 9(n, ed. The 2ictional 2ather7 Lacanian Readings of the Te&t. A3herst# U. (B 4assachusetts P., 1+-1. ---. Lacan and Narration7 the !sychoanalytic difference in narrative theory . Balti3(re# 8(hns 5(?=ins U.P., 01+-"1 1+-/. @avis, A(bert 9(n and A(nald SchleiBer. 'riticism and 'ulture7 The Role of 'riti6ue in %odern Literary Theory. L(ng3an, 1++1. @avis, A(bert 9(n and A(nald SchleiBer, eds. 'ontem!orary Litearary 'riticism7 Literary and 'ultural #tudies. "rd editi(n. *e; <(r= C L(nd(n# L(ng3an, 1+-2. @a;s(n, >erence and A(bert Sc(tt @u?ree, eds. #eventeenth/'entury English Poetry. An Annotated Anthology. L(nd(n# 5arvest 7heatsheaB, 1++/. @e 4an, Paul. "lindness and nsight7 Essays in the Rhetoric of 'ontem!orary 'riticism . 2nd editi(n, revised. 4inea?(lis# U. (B 4innes(ta P., 01+,11 1+-". ---. &>he Aesistance t( >he(ry' 01+-21. %odern 'riticism and Theory. !d. by @avid L(dge. *e; <(r=# L(ng3an, 1++2. "..-,1. @errida, 8acHues. &Letter t( a 8a?anese 6riend' 01+-"1. A Derrida Reader. !d. by P. Ka3uB. *e; <(r=# 9(lu3bia UP, 1++1. 22+-,2. ---. #!ecters of %ar&. *e; <(r=# A(utledge, 1++/. @escartes, Aene. Discourse on %ethod and %editations on 2irst Philoso!hy. >rans. @(nald A. 9ress. /th editi(n. )ndiana?(lis/9a3bridge# 5ac=ett Publishing 9(3?any, 1++-. @(cherty, >h(3as. &En Aeading.' 'ritical (uarterly /.."# 2-1+. @(cherty, >h(3as, ed. Postmodernism. A Reader. 9a3bridge 5arvester 7heatsheaB# 9a3bridge U. P., 1++". @urant, Alan and *igel 6abb. Literary #tudies in Action. L(nd(n, *e; <(r=# A(utledge, 1++2. @uvall, 8(hn *. and Ann 8. Abadie, eds. 2aul;ner and Postmodernism. 2aul;ner and

12,

<o;na!ataw!ha$ ,---. 8ac=s(n# U.P. (B 4ississi??i, 2002. !aglet(n, >erry. Literary Theory7 An ntroduction. EFB(rd# Blac=;ell, 1+-". ---. %ar&ism and Literary 'riticism. Ber=eley and L(s Angeles# U. (B 9aliB(rnia P., 1+,2. !li(t, >.S. #elected Essays of=. !d. by 6ran= Ker3(de. L(nd(n# 6aber, 1+,.. &!thics.' Encyclo!aedia "ritannica. 200/. !ncycl(?aedia Britannica Enline. 1 4ar. 200/ K htt?#//search.eb.c(3/eb/articleLeuM10-.2+ N. 6iedler, Leslie A. Love and Death in the American Novel. *e; <(r=# Stein and @ay, 1+22. 6(rd, B(ris, gen.ed. The New Pelican Guide to English Literature . v(ls. 2, ", /. L(nd(n# Penguin B((=s, 1+-2. 6(ucault, 4ichel. &>he 9arceral' 0Br(3 Disci!line and Punish7 The "irth of the Prison 1. Leitch 2001. 12"2-/,. ---. &>he )ncite3ent t( @isc(urse' 0Br(3 The *istory of #e&uality1. Leitch 2001. 12/--22. ---. &>ruth and P(;er' 0Brag3ent1. Leitch 2001. 122,-,0. ---. &7hat )s an Auth(rL' Languages$ 'ounter/%emory$ Practice7 #elected Essays and nterviews. >rans. @.6. B(uchard and S. Si3(n. )thaca# 9(rnell U.P., 1+,,. 11"-"-. 6raOer, Sir 8a3es. The Golden "ough. A #tudy in %agic and Religion. 7(rds;(rth !diti(ns Ltd., 1++". 6rye, *(rthr(?. Anatomy of 'riticism. 2our Essays. Princet(n, *.8.# Princet(n U.P., 1+,". Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar. The %adwoman in the Attic7 The +oman +riter and the Nineteenth 'entury magination. *e; 5aven# <ale U.P., 1+,+. Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar, eds. The Norton Anthology of Literature )y +omen. *e; <(r=# *(rt(n, 1+-.. - - -. #ha;es!eare>s #isters. 2eminist Essays on +omen Poets. Bl((3ingt(n and L(nd(n# )ndiana U.P., 1+,+. 5andy, 7illia3 8. and 4aF 7estbr((=, eds. Twentieth 'entury 'riticism. The %a?or #tatements. *e; <(r=# >he 6ree Press, 1+,/. 5assan, )hab. &Bey(nd P(st3(dernis3# t(;ard and aesthetic (B trust.' Angela;i -.1 0A?ril 200"1# "-11. ---. &9(nBessi(ns (B a Aeluctant 9ritic (r, the Aesistance t( Literature.' New Literary *istory 2/.1 9ulture and !veryday LiBe 07inter, 1++"1# 1-1.. ---. 'ontem!orary American Literature. *e; <(r=# Ungar, 1+,". ---. &7illia3 6aul=ner and the Privati(ns (B P(st3(dernis3.' 2aul;ner and Postmodernism. 2aul;ner and <o;na!ataw!ha$ ,---. !d. by 8(hn *. @uvall and Ann 8. Abadie. 8ac=s(n# U.P. (B 4ississi??i, 2002. 1-20. ---. Radical nnocence7 #tudies in the 'ontem!orary American Novel . *e; <(r=# 5ar?er 9(l(?h(n B((=s, 1+22. 5a;th(rn, 8ere3y. A Glossary of 'ontem!orary Literary Theory . /th ed. L(nd(n# Arn(ld, 2000. 5ebdige, @ic=. #u)culture7 The %eaning of #tyle. L(nd(n and *e; <(r=# A(utledge, 01+,+1 2002. 5(;e, )rving. &>he :alue (B the 9an(n.' The New Re!u)lic7 a ?ournal of o!inion 20/., 01++11# /0-/. )r;in, 8(hn >. Dou)ling and ncest @ Re!etition and Revenge. A #!eculative Reading of 2aul;ner. Balti3(re and L(nd(n# 8(hns 5(?=ins U.P., 1+,.. 8a3es(n, 6redric. The Political 9nconscious7 Narrative as a #ocially #ym)olic Act. )thaca# 9(rnell U.P., 1+-1. ---. Postmodernism$ or$ The 'ultural Logic of Late 'a!italism7 Post/'ontem!orary nterventions. @urha3# @u=e U.P., 1++1.

12-

8ehlen, 4yra. 'lass and 'haracter in 2aul;ner>s #outh. *e; <(r=# 9(lu3bia U.P., 1+,2. Kartiganer, @(nald 4. and Ann 8. Abadie, eds. 2aul;ner and deology. 2aul;ner and <o;na!ataw!ha$ ,--A. 8ac=s(n# U.P. (B 4ississi??i, 1++.. KaOin, AlBred. An American Procession. *e; <(r=# AlBred A. Kn(?B, 1+-/. Ker3(de, 6ran=. The #ense of an Ending. #tudies in the Theory of 2iction with a New E!ilogue. EFB(rd U.P., 01+221 2000. Knell;(lB, 9hrista and 9hrist(?her *(rris, eds. The 'am)ridge *istory of Literary 'riticism. :(l. + Twentieth/'entury *istorical$ Philoso!hical and Psychological Pers!ectives. 9a3bridge U.P., 2001. Leitch, :incent B. American Literary 'riticism from the Thirties to the Eighties . *e; <(r=# 9(lu3bia U.P., 1+--. Leitch, :incent B., ed. Norton Anthology of Theory and 'riticism. 7.7. *(rt(n, 2001. Le;is, Barry. Ba8uo shiguro. 4anchester UP, 2000. L(dge, @avid. Language and 2iction. Essays in 'riticism and 3er)al Analysis of the English Novel. *e; <(r=# 9(lu3bia U.P., 1+2,. L(dge, @avid, ed. %odern 'riticism and Theory7 A Reader. L(nd(n# L(ng3an, 1++.. 4a??, *igel. &@ec(nstructi(n.' 9(yle et al. ,,,-,+0. 4arin(, Adrian. 'om!aratism Ci teoria literaturii . >rans. 4ihai Ungurean. )aJi# P(lir(3, 1++-. 4atthe;s, Sean and Aura >a3as Sibisan, eds. Theories7 A Reader. Bucharest# Paralela /., 200". 4c5ale, Brian. &6r(3 3(dernist t( ?(st3(dernist Bicti(n# change (B d(3inant. >he d(3inant.' Postmodernist 2iction. L(nd(n and *e; <(r=# A(utledge, 01+-,1 1++/. "-11. 4iller, 8a3es !. 8r., ed. *eritage of American Literature7 The 'ivil +ar to the Present . 5arc(urt Brace 8(van(vich, 1++1. 4iner, !arl and 8enniBer Brady, eds. Literary transmission and authority7 Dryden and other writers. 9a3bridge U.P., 1++". 4(i, >(ril. #e&ual@Te&tual Politics. 2eminist Literary Theory . L(nd(n and *e; <(r=# A(utledge, 01+-.1 1++.. 4(rris(n, >(ni. Playing in the Dar;. 9a3bridge, 4ass.# 5arvard University Press, 1++2. *ich(lls, Peter. %odernisms7 A Literary Guide. L(nd(n# 4ac3illan, 1++.. ED9(nn(r, 7illia3 :an, ed. #even %odern American Novelists. An ntroduction . 4innea?(lis# U. (B 4innes(ta P., 1+2/. Err, 8(hn. &>he 4(dernist *(vel in the >;entieth 9entury.' 9(yle et al. 21+-2"0. E%(iu, Adrian. &An !Fercise in 6icti(nal Li3inality# the P(stc(l(nial, the P(stc(33unist, and A(3aniaDs >hresh(ld Generati(n.' 'om!arative #tudies of #outh Asia$ Africa$ and the %iddle East 2".1C2 0200"1# -,-10.. P(rter, 9ar(lyn. #eeing and "eing7 The Plight of the Partici!ant O)server in Emerson$ 4ames$ Adams and 2aul;ner. 4iddlet(n, 9># 7esleyan U.P., 1+-1. Aagg. !.P. &7(rlds (r 7(rds A?artL >he 9(nseHuences (B Prag3atis3 B(r Literary Studies. An )ntervie; ;ith Aichard A(rty.' Philosophy and Literature (+ct. 2002): 339697. Aay, A(bert B. &P(st3(dernis3.' 9(yle et al. 1"1-/,. Aei3an, @(nald 5. &>he A(3antic 9ritical >raditi(n.' 9(yle, et al. 2-2-2+.. Aice, Phili? and Patricia 7augh, eds. %odern Literary Theory. A Reader . 2nd editi(n. L(nd(n, *e; <(r=, Sydney and Auc=land# Arn(ld, 1++2. Aichards, ).A. Practical 'riticism. A #tudy of Literary 4udgement . *e; <(r=# 5arc(urt,

12+

Brace and 7(rld, )nc., 1+2+. Aichter, @avid, ed. The 'ritical Tradition. 'lassic Te&ts and 'ontem!orary Trends . 2nd editi(n. B(st(n# BedB(rd B((=s, 1++-. Aiv=in, 8ulie and 4ichael Ayan. Literary Theory7 An Anthology . 4alden, 4assachusetts# Blac=;ell Publishers )nc., 1++-. Aubin, L(uis @., 8r., ed. The American #outh7 Portrait of a 'ulture. 7ashingt(n, @.9.# United States )nB(r3ati(n Agency. 6(ru3 Aeader Series, 01+,+1 1++1. Aylance, Aic=. &>he *e; 9riticis3.' 9(yle et al. ,21-,".. Said, !d;ard. 'ulture and m!erialism. L(nd(n# :intage, 01++"1 1++/. Sch;arO, @aniel A. &>he *(vel and 4(dern 9riticis3.' 9(yle et al. 202-21-. Selden, Aa3an, ed. The 'am)ridge *istory of Literary 'riticism. :(l. -# 2rom 2ormalism to Poststructuralism. 9a3bridge U.P., 1++.. Sch(rer, 4ar=. The +orld +e magineD #elected Essays. *e; <(r=# 6arrar, Straus and Gir(uF, 1+2-. S3ith, 5enry *ash. &9an PA3erican StudiesD @evel(? a 4eth(dL' American (uarterly )Q 0Su33er 1+.,1# 1+,-20-. S(ntag, Susan. Against nter!retation. L(nd(n# :intage, 01+211 1++/. S?iva=, Gayatri 9ha=rav(rty. &>hree 7(3enDs >eFts and a 9ritiHue (B )3?erialis3' 01+-.1. 2eminism7 An Anthology of Literary Theory and 'riticism . !d. by A(byn A. 7arh(l and @iana Price 5erndl. *e; Bruns;ic=# Autgers U.P., 1++1. ,+---1/. St(c=, Brian. &!thical :alues and the Literary )3aginati(n in the Later Ancient 7(rld.' New Literary *istory 2+.1 01++-1# 1-1". ---. &Aeading, !thics, and the Literary )3aginati(n.' New Literary *istory "/.1 0200"1# 11,. SundHuist, !ric 8. 2aul;ner7 The *ouse Divided. Balti3(re and L(nd(n# 8(hns 5(?=ins U.P., 1+-". >(d(r(v, >Ovetan. The 2antastic7 A #tructural A!!roach to a Literary Genre . 9leveland# Press (B 9ase 7estern Aeserve University, 1+,.. :lad, )(an. &>e(rie literar$ Ji ?(etic$.' En la)irintul lecturii. 9luR-*a?(ca# @acia, 1+++. ,.1/-. 7att, )an. The Rise of the *(vel. 5ar3(nd;(rth# Penguin B((=s, 1+.,. 7ayne, @(n !. &*e; 5ist(ricis3.' 9(yle et al. ,+1--0.. 7einbr(t, 5(;ard @. "ritannia>s ssue7 The Rise of "ritish Literature from Dryden to Ossian. 1++,. 7elle=, Aene. A *istory of %odern 'riticism$ ,F0./,-0.. :(l. 2# American 'riticism$ ,-../,-0.. *e; 5aven and L(nd(n# <ale U.P., 1+-2. 7idd(;s(n, Peter. Literature. >he *e; 9ritical )di(3 series. L(nd(n C *e; <(r=# A(utledge, 1+++. 7illis, Susan. &Learning Br(3 the Banana.' American (uarterly "+ 07inter 1+-,1# .-2200. 7ils(n, !d3und. The +ound and the "ow. #even #tudies in Literature . *e; <(r=# EFB(rd U.P., 01+2+1 1+,0. 7i3satt, 7.K. and 4.9. Beardsley. The 3er)al con7 #tudies in the %eaning of Poetry . U. (B Kentuc=y P., 1+./. 7i3satt, 7.K., ed. Literary 'riticism7 dea and Act. The English nstitute$ ,-G-/,-FA. #elected Essays. Ber=ley, L(s Angeles, L(nd(n# U. (B 9aliB(rnia P., 1+,/. 7(lBreys, 8ulian, ed. Literary Theories7 A 'ase #tudy in 'ritical Performance . L(nd(n# Palgrave 4ac3illan, 1++2.

1"0

---. Literary Theory7 A Reader and Guide. !dinburgh# !dinburgh U.P., 1+++. 7((dh(use, 4ar= B. A Preface to Philoso!hy. .th editi(n. Bel3(nt, 9a.# 7ads;(rth Publishing 9(., 1++/. 7right, !liOabeth. &Psych(analytic 9riticis3.' 9(yle et al. ,2/-,,2. S;ic=er, Steven *., ed. The 'am)ridge 'om!anion to English Literature$ ,H0./,F1. . 9a3bridge U.P., 1++-.

1"1

A%%endi& A

C"#RSE #NI$ DESCRIP$I"N

&LU9)A* BLAGA' U*):!AS)><, S)B)U 6A9UL>< E6 L!>>!AS A*@ 6)*! AA>S

S?ecialis3# !nglish Literature and Language, 4aR(r and 4in(r @isci?line# 5ist(ry (B Angl(-A3erican 9riticis3 9(urse 9(nven(r# @r. Ana-Karina Schneider, Lecturer 9lass h(urs ?er year# 1/ c(urse h(urs 1/ se3inar h(urs Level# Seni(r Se3ester# 2nd 9redits# 4aR(rs " 4in(rs 2 !valuati(n B(r3# ;ritten eFa3inati(n 0!1 6inal 4ar= 0?ercentage1# Se3inar activity "0T 6inal eFa3 ,0T "B%EC$I&ES' >he c(urse and se3inar in literary criticis3 ?r(?(ses t( (BBer a ?an(ra3a (B the 3ain tendencies and trends in 3(dern and c(nte3?(rary critical the(ry, as ;ell as t( Burther the studentsD understanding (B literary hist(ry. )t relies (n the studentsD ?revi(usly accu3ulated =n(;ledge (B linguistics, literary the(ry and c(3?arative literature and it ai3s t( integrate Angl(-A3erican critical the(ry int( the larger ;estern critical traditi(n. 4(re(ver, by assi3ilating recent research in the Bield, the lectures ?ur?(rt t( reassess s(3e (B the 3(st inBluential c(ntributi(ns t( literary studies 3ade (ver the last Be; centuries by ?restigi(us sch((ls (B critical thin=ing. >hey thus c(ntribute t( the c(ns(lidati(n (B literary studies as a disci?line ;ith scientiBic bases and a de(nt(l(gy (B its (;n. As it addresses students a??r(aching graduati(n, the c(urse ai3s t( Bacilitate 3eth(d(l(gical decisi(ns in a??r(aching the 3aterial (B their ch(ice in vie; (B c(3?leting their degree ?a?ers. 4(st i3?(rtantly, the c(urse in literary criticis3 and the(ry h(?es t( (BBer students a s(?histicated, 3any-layered, ?(lyg(nal lens thr(ugh ;hich t( vie; c(nte3?(rary cultural realities, and t( hel? engage the3 in a BruitBul and c(gent dial(gue ab(ut, and ;ith, the ;(rld they live in.

1"2

C"N$EN$' (ect)re $o*ics' Lecture )# )ntr(duct(ry @eBiniti(ns 7hat 9ritics @( 9lassiBicati(ns# 4a??ing (ut the >errit(ry Lecture ))# Precurs(rs >he Plat(nic @ile33a >he Arist(telian S(luti(n Ether :ie;s Lecture )))# >he 5u3anist 5eritage >he Aenaissance >he Aest(rati(n >he !nlighten3ent Lecture ):# >he *ineteenth 9entury >he A(3antics >he :ict(rians >he A3erican Scene Lecture :# >he !arly >;entieth 9entury Liberal 5u3anis3 Practical 9riticis3 *e; 9riticis3 Ether 6(r3alis3s Lecture :)# >he Sec(nd 5alB (B the >;entieth 9entury# Structuralis3 P(ststructuralis30s1 Lecture :))# 9(r(llary# >he Less(ns (B P(st3(dernis3 >he Age (B &P(st-'s P(st3(dernis3 and )ts @isc(ntents >he >a3ing (B >he(ry Seminar $o*ics' 1. >he Precurs(rs# Plato, Re!u)lic Q, &)(n' 0Fer(F c(?ies in the A3erican Library1 Sam)el %ohnson, Br(3 Preface to #ha;es!eare 0Brag3ents in The Norton Anthology of English Literature, v(l. 1, and (ther anth(l(gies1 E?ti(nal Aeading#1 Plat(, &Phaedrus' 2. >he 1+th 9entury# S+$+ Coleri,!e, Br(3 "iogra!hia Literaria# Brag3ents Br(3 cha?ters / and 1"U Br(3 Lectures on #ha;es!eare 0in The Norton Anthology of English
1

iB y(u cann(t Bind the 3aterials, ?lease c(ntact 3e

1""

Literature, v(l. 2 and (ther anth(l(gies1 -atthe. Arnol,, Br(3 'ulture and Anarchy, Br(3 The 2unction of 'riticism at the Present Time 0in NAEL etc.1 E?ti(nal Aeading# S.B. Shelley, A Defence of Poetry A.7. !3ers(n, The Poet 6riedrich *ietOsche, &En >ruth and Lying in an !Ftra-4(ral Sense'U Br(3 The +ill to Power 0in Aiv=in and Ayan1 ". >he *e; 9riticis3 and bey(nd# $+S+ Eliot, &>raditi(n and the )ndividual >alent' 0in NAEL 2 etc.1 I+A+ Richar,s, Br(3 Practical 'riticism# Part Ene# &)ntr(duct(ry,' and cha?ter 1 (B Part >hree, &>he 6(ur Kinds (B 4eaning' /+K+ /imsatt and -onroe C+ Bear,sley, &>he )ntenti(nal 6allacy' 0in The 3er)al con and anth(l(gies in AL1 E?ti(nal Aeading# 7illia3 !3?s(n, #even Ty!es of Am)iguity 0selectively, es?ecially the !?il(gue1 6erdinand de Saussure, Br(3 'ourse in General Linguistics 0in ACA1 7.K. 7i3satt and 4(nr(e 9. Beardsley, &>he ABBective 6allacy' 0in The 3er)al con and anth(l(gies in AL1 /. Structuralis3 and bey(nd# Linguistics and Psych(analysis# Roman %a0obson, &>;( As?ects (B Language' 0in ACA1 %+(+ A)stin, &5(; t( @( >hings ;ith 7(rds' 0in ACA1 %)lia Kriste1a, &A Iuesti(n (B SubRectivity An )ntervie;' 0in Aice C 7augh1 E?ti(nal Aeading# 9laude Levi-Strauss, &>he Structural Study (B 4yth' 0in ACA1 8acHues Lacan, &>he 4irr(r Stage as 6(r3ative (B the 6uncti(n (B the ) as Aevealed in Psych(analytic !F?erience,' &>he Sy3b(lic Erder' 0in ACA1 .. 5ist(ricist and 9ultural Studies# 2ayatri S*i1a0, &>hree 7(3enDs >eFts and a 9ritiHue (B )3?erialis3' Dic0 Heb,i!e, Br(3 #u)culture7 The %eaning of #tyle 0in ACA1 %),ith B)tler, &)3itati(n and Gender )nsub(rdinati(n' 0in ACA1 E?ti(nal Aeading# 4ichel 6(ucault, Br(3 The Order of Things$ The Archeology of Bnowledge$ Disci!line and Punish 0in ACA1U &7hat )s an Auth(rL' L(uis Althusser, &)de(l(gical State A??aratuses' 0in ACA1 !d;ard Said, Br(3 Orientalism 0in ACA1 2. @ec(nstructi(n# %ac3)es Derri,a, &Plat(Ds Phar3acy' 0in ACA1 Pa)l ,e -an, &Aesistance t( >he(ry' E?ti(nal Aeading# A(land Barthes, &>he @eath (B the Auth(r,' &6r(3 7(r= t( >eFt' 4i=hail Ba=htin, Br(3 &@isc(urse in the *(vel' 0in ACA1

1"/

8acHues @errida, &@iBBerance' 0in ACA1, &Structure, Sign and Play in the @isc(urse (B the 5u3an Sciences' 0in Aice C 7augh1 Paul de 4an, &Se3i(l(gy and Ahet(ric' ,. P(3( and P(st-P(3(# %ean-4rancois (yotar,, Br(3 The Postmodern 'ondition 0in ACA1 Ihab Hassan, &P(st3(dernis3 and Bey(nd' E?ti(nal Aeading# 8ean Baudrillard, Br(3 The Procession of #imulacra.

1".

A%%endi& $

Hi!hli!hts
$erms y(u 3ust be able t( deBine# Acti(n vs. ?l(t Aesthetics A3biguity, ?arad(F, ir(ny A?hasia A?(ria Base vs. su?erstructure 9entre vs. 3argin 9l(se reading 9(nsci(us, unc(nsci(us 9riticis3 @eath (B the auth(r @ec(ru3 @eBence 0as a genre1 @ialectics @iegesis @iBBerance @isc(urse @(3inant vs. sub(rdinant @(3inant, e3ergent, residual !?ic !?iste3e 6allacy 6(r3 vs./V c(ntent Grand narratives >ragedy >ragic her( 5ege3(ny )de(l(gy )3aginary stage, 4irr(r stage, Sy3b(lic stage )3aginati(n# ?ri3ary, sec(ndaryU 6ancy )3?erialis3 Katharsis Langue vs. !arole Literary the(ry Literature L(g(centris3 4etacritical 4etalanguage 4eta?hysics 4etateFt 4i3esis 4yth 4ythical 3eth(d *arrat(r vs. narratee *egative ca?ability *(vel/ c(3ic r(3ance EbRective c(rrelative Eedi?us c(3?leF Erat(ry Erganic unity >ranscendentalis3 Unity Paradig3atic chain Paradig3atic d(3inant Peri(d c(de Pers?ective/ P(int (B vie; Play, Bree?lay P(etics P(etry AeBlect(r AeBleFivity, selBreBleFivity Ahet(ric Au?ture Se3antics Se3e3e Se3i(l(gy Sign, signiBier, signiBied SigniBicati(n Structure Style Sub-culture Subli3e vs. beautiBul Su??le3ent >he la;/na3e (B the Bather Utilitarianis3

*( d(ubt y(u ;ill add 3(re ter3s t( this list during the se3esterU this is 3erely a starting ?(int.

1"2

Critical tren,s y(u 3ust be able t( characterise 0i.e., ?lace in hist(rical c(nteFt, enu3erate 3ain Beatures and c(ntributi(ns, list and deBine =ey ter3s, na3e 3ain ?r(3(ters1# A(3anticis3 9lassicis3 / *e(classicis3 Liberal 5u3anis3 Phil(l(gy *e; 9riticis3 / Practical 9riticis3 Anthr(?(l(gical criticis3 *arrat(l(gy 5er3eneutics 6(r3alis3 Structuralis3 Psych(analytical criticis3 Aeader-Aes?(nse 9riticis3 6e3inis3 and Gender Studies 4arFist criticis3 *e; 5ist(ricis3 / 9ultural 4aterialis3 9ultural Studies P(stc(l(nial Studies P(st-c(33unist Studies P(ststructuralis3 @ec(nstructi(n P(st3(dernis3

5o) m)st be able t( distinguish bet;een the vari(us c(nce?ti(ns (B mimesis and &?(etry' 0i.e., s(luti(ns t( the Plat(nic dile33a1 devel(?ed by the B(ll(;ing critics# Plat(, Arist(tle, the *e(?lat(nists, the !ducati(nists, Sir Phili? Sidney, 8(hn @ryden, AleFander P(?e, 7illia3 7(rds;(rth, the dec(nstructi(nists. 5o) m)st be able t( describe the r(le (B the critic as ?rescribed by# Plat( 0he called hi3 &?hil(s(?her'1, Sidney, @ryden, P(?e, Addis(n, 4athe; Arn(ld, 7alter Pater, ).A. Aichards, 9leanth Br((=s, *(rthr(? 6rye, Paul de 4an, 8(nathan 9uller, 5ayden 7hite. 5o) m)st be able t( detail the c(ntributi(ns t( literary criticis3 3ade by the Angl(-A3erican critics and ;riters discussed in the lecture n(tes, s?eciBy ;hat cultural (r critical trend they bel(nged t( 0iB any1, c(3?are the3 t( (thers, and deBine the ter3s they c(ined (r c(nsecrated. Also chec0 .ith the list o to*ics6 <(ur eFa3 t(?ics 3ight c(3e in the B(r3 (B syntag3s Br(3 that list. E7am 3)estion sam*les' 1. &5ist(ry is s(3ething un?leasant that ha??ens t( (ther ?e(?le' 0Arn(ld >(ynbee1. >his is >(ynbeeDs ?ar(dic acc(unt (B traditi(nal c(nce?ts (B hist(ry. 5(; d(es the *e; 5ist(ricis3 diBBer Br(3 such an a??r(ach in its st(c= ta=ing (B the r(le (B hist(ry in (ur livesL 2. @erridaDs ?r(Rect is t( debun= meta!hysics, that is, the traditi(nal 7estern ?hil(s(?hy based (n ideas (B (rigins, ?ur?(seBulness, 3eaning, (rder, essence,

1",

being. 5e d(es s( by attac=ing 7estern &l(g(centris3' 0i.e., the ?ri3acy (B s?eech (ver ;riting1. 5(; d( the dec(nstructi(nists eF?(se the vacu(usness (B the traditi(nal ?hil(s(?hical n(ti(nsL ". 5(; d(es Sir Phili? Sidney s(lve the Plat(nic dile33a regarding the ?(tentially n(Fi(us r(le (B ?(etry in s(cietyL /. *(rthr(? 6rye is (ne (B the 3(st inBluential critics (B the t;entieth century. Please c(33ent (n his c(ntributi(n t( Angl(-A3erican criticis3. $he e7am .ill consist o three 3)estions' (ne 3(re general, regarding a trendU (ne regarding the c(ntributi(n (B (ne s?eciBic criticU the third ;ill reHuire y(u t( deBine three (B the ter3s listed ab(ve, in the Birst ?art (B this hand(ut. )n dealing ;ith Huesti(n n(. 1, ?lease 3a=e sure y(u 3enti(n s(3e (B the 3(st i3?(rtant critics bel(nging t( that ?articular trend, ;ith their s?eciBic c(ntributi(n. )n ans;ering Huesti(n n(. 2, use the s?ecialised ter3in(l(gy e3?l(yed by that s?eciBic critic and eF?lain it. <(u 3ust n(t ;rite 3(re than t;( ?ages all in all, and y(u ;ill have +0 3inutes t( d( s(. In *re*arin! yo)r e7am, o !reatest hel* .ill be a thoro)!h rea,in! o ' Barry, Peter. "eginning Theory 0available in the British Library1 Bla3ires, 5arry. A *istory of Literary 'riticism 0available in the British Library V Fer(F c(?ies in the A3erican Library1 9udd(n, 8. A. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory 0available in the A3erican Library1 @aiches, @avid. 'ritical A!!roaches to Literature 0Fer(F c(?ies in the A3erican Library1 Leitch, :incent B. American Literary 'riticism from the Thirties to the Eighties 0available in the A3erican Library1 4atthe;s, Sean and Aura >a3as Sibisan, eds. Theories7 A Reader 0available in b(th libraries1 Aiv=in, 8ulie and 4ichael Ayan. Literary Theory7 An Anthology 0available in the British Library1 7elle=, Aene. A *istory of %odern 'riticism$ ,F0./,-0. 0available in the A3erican Library1 But ?lease d( n(t neglect t( read any (ther hist(ry (B criticis3 and the intr(duct(ry entries in anth(l(gies (B criticis3, as ;ell as ?ri3ary the(retical and critical teFts.

A%%endi& C

Class Han,o)ts
@avid AichterDs diagra3 based (n 4.5. Abra3sD classiBicati(n (B the(ries#

7EAL@ W 4i3etic the(ries W W PE!4 6(r3al the(ries /X !F?ressive the(ries / X Ahet(rical the(ries / X AU>5EA AU@)!*9!
@avis-7augh diagra3#

>he Age (B Aut(n(3y 07augh1 Y >he Age (B the 9ritic 0@avis1 Z

!Fegetical

Y
5er3eneutic W/Y Aeader-Aes?(nse W Se3i(tic/ @ec(nstructive

Z >he Age (B the Aeader 0@avis1 Y >he Age (B Aestheticisati(n 07augh1

Y M ev(luti(nU chr(n(l(gical seHuenceU Z M chr(n(l(gical a??urtenance.
W M c(nc(3itanceU

1"+

PLATO
ION 0ranslated by BenDamin >owett

P43=87= 8E 024 16A;8,<4( =ocrates, 6on) =8?3A04=( /elcome, 6on) Are you from your nati*e city of 4%hesusF 687( 7o, =ocrates+ but from 4%idaurus, where 6 attended the festi*al of Ascle%ius) =8?3A04=( And do the 4%idaurians ha*e contests of rha%sodes at the festi*alF 687( 8 yes+ and of all sorts of musical %erformers) =8?3A04=( And were you one of the com%etitorsGand did you succeedF 687( 6 obtained the first %riHe of all, =ocrates) =8?3A04=( /ell done+ and 6 ho%e that you will do the same for us at the Panathenaea) 687( And 6 will, %lease hea*en) =8?3A04=( 6 often en*y the %rofession of a rha%sode, 6on+ for you ha*e always to wear fine clothes, and to loo- as beautiful as you can is a %art of your art) 0hen, again, you are obliged to be continually in the com%any of many good %oets+ and es%ecially of 2omer, who is the best and most di*ine of them+ and to understand him, and not merely learn his words by rote, is a thing greatly to be en*ied) And no man can be a rha%sode who does not understand the meaning of the %oet) Eor the rha%sode ought to inter%ret the mind of the %oet to his hearers, but how can he inter%ret him well unless he -nows what he meansF All this is greatly to be en*ied) 687( Cery true, =ocrates+ inter%retation has certainly been the most laborious %art of my art+ and 6 belie*e myself able to s%ea- about 2omer better than any man+ and that neither 9etrodorus of ;am%sacus, nor =tesimbrotus of 0hasos, nor ,laucon, nor any one else who e*er was, had as good ideas about 2omer as 6 ha*e, or as many) =8?3A04=( 6 am glad to hear you say so, 6on+ 6 see that you will not refuse to ac.uaint me with them) 687( ?ertainly, =ocrates+ and you really ought to hear how e5.uisitely 6 render 2omer) 6 thin- that the 2omeridae should gi*e me a golden crown) =8?3A04=( 6 shall ta-e an o%%ortunity of hearing your embellishments of him at some other time) But Dust now 6 should li-e to as- you a .uestion( 1oes your art e5tend to 2esiod and Archilochus, or to 2omer onlyF

1/0

687( 0o 2omer only+ he is in himself .uite enough) =8?3A04=( Are there any things about which 2omer and 2esiod agreeF 687( Ies+ in my o%inion there are a good many) =8?3A04=( And can you inter%ret better what 2omer says, or what 2esiod says, about these matters in which they agreeF 687( 6 can inter%ret them e.ually well, =ocrates, where they agree) =8?3A04=( But what about matters in which they do not agreeFGfor e5am%le, about di*ination, of which both 2omer and 2esiod ha*e something to say,G 687( Cery true( =8?3A04=( /ould you or a good %ro%het be a better inter%reter of what these two %oets say about di*ination, not only when they agree, but when they disagreeF 687( A %ro%het) =8?3A04=( And if you were a %ro%het, would you not be able to inter%ret them when they disagree as well as when they agreeF 687( ?learly) =8?3A04=( But how did you come to ha*e this s-ill about 2omer only, and not about 2esiod or the other %oetsF 1oes not 2omer s%ea- of the same themes which all other %oets handleF 6s not war his great argumentF and does he not s%ea- of human society and of intercourse of men, good and bad, s-illed and uns-illed, and of the gods con*ersing with one another and with man-ind, and about what ha%%ens in hea*en and in the world below, and the generations of gods and heroesF Are not these the themes of which 2omer singsF 687( Cery true, =ocrates) =8?3A04=( And do not the other %oets sing of the sameF 687( Ies, =ocrates+ but not in the same way as 2omer) =8?3A04=( /hat, in a worse wayF 687( Ies, in a far worse) =8?3A04=( And 2omer in a better wayF 687( 2e is incom%arably better) =8?3A04=( And yet surely, my dear friend 6on, in a discussion about arithmetic, where many %eo%le are s%ea-ing, and one s%ea-s better than the rest, there is somebody who can Dudge which of them is the good s%ea-erF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( And he who Dudges of the good will be the same as he who

1/1

Dudges of the bad s%ea-ersF 687( 0he same) =8?3A04=( And he will be the arithmeticianF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( /ell, and in discussions about the wholesomeness of food, when many %ersons are s%ea-ing, and one s%ea-s better than the rest, will he who recogniHes the better s%ea-er be a different %erson from him who recogniHes the worse, or the sameF 687( ?learly the same) =8?3A04=( And who is he, and what is his nameF 687( 0he %hysician) =8?3A04=( And s%ea-ing generally, in all discussions in which the subDect is the same and many men are s%ea-ing, will not he who -nows the good -now the bad s%ea-er alsoF Eor if he does not -now the bad, neither will he -now the good when the same to%ic is being discussed) 687( 0rue) =8?3A04=( 6s not the same %erson s-ilful in bothF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( And you say that 2omer and the other %oets, such as 2esiod and Archilochus, s%ea- of the same things, although not in the same way+ but the one s%ea-s well and the other not so wellF 687( Ies+ and 6 am right in saying so) =8?3A04=( And if you -new the good s%ea-er, you would also -now the inferior s%ea-ers to be inferiorF 687( 0hat is true) =8?3A04=( 0hen, my dear friend, can 6 be mista-en in saying that 6on is e.ually s-illed in 2omer and in other %oets, since he himself ac-nowledges that the same %erson will be a good Dudge of all those who s%ea- of the same things+ and that almost all %oets do s%ea- of the same thingsF 687( /hy then, =ocrates, do 6 lose attention and go to slee% and ha*e absolutely no ideas of the least *alue, when any one s%ea-s of any other %oet+ but when 2omer is mentioned, 6 wa-e u% at once and am all attention and ha*e %lenty to sayF =8?3A04=( 0he reason, my friend, is ob*ious) 7o one can fail to see that you s%ea- of 2omer without any art or -nowledge) 6f you were able to s%ea- of him by rules of art, you would ha*e been able to s%ea- of all other %oets+ for %oetry is a whole) 687( Ies)

1/2

=8?3A04=( And when any one ac.uires any other art as a whole, the same may be said of them) /ould you li-e me to e5%lain my meaning, 6onF 687( Ies, indeed, =ocrates+ 6 *ery much wish that you would( for 6 lo*e to hear you wise men tal-) =8?3A04=( 8 that we were wise, 6on, and that you could truly call us so+ but you rha%sodes and actors, and the %oets whose *erses you sing, are wise+ whereas 6 am a common man, who only s%ea- the truth) Eor consider what a *ery common%lace and tri*ial thing is this which 6 ha*e saidGa thing which any man might say( that when a man has ac.uired a -nowledge of a whole art, the en.uiry into good and bad is one and the same) ;et us consider this matter+ is not the art of %ainting a wholeF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( And there are and ha*e been many %ainters good and badF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( And did you e*er -now any one who was s-ilful in %ointing out the e5cellences and defects of Polygnotus the son of Aglao%hon, but inca%able of criticiHing other %ainters+ and when the wor- of any other %ainter was %roduced, went to slee% and was at a loss, and had no ideas+ but when he had to gi*e his o%inion about Polygnotus, or whoe*er the %ainter might be, and about him only, wo-e u% and was attenti*e and had %lenty to sayF 687( 7o indeed, 6 ha*e ne*er -nown such a %erson) =8?3A04=( 8r did you e*er -now of any one in scul%ture, who was s-ilful in e5%ounding the merits of 1aedalus the son of 9etion, or of 4%eius the son of Pano%eus, or of 0heodorus the =amian, or of any indi*idual scul%tor+ but when the wor-s of scul%tors in general were %roduced, was at a loss and went to slee% and had nothing to sayF 687( 7o indeed+ no more than the other) =8?3A04=( And if 6 am not mista-en, you ne*er met with any one among flute"%layers or har%"%layers or singers to the har% or rha%sodes who was able to discourse of 8lym%us or 0hamyras or 8r%heus, or Phemius the rha%sode of 6thaca, but was at a loss when he came to s%ea- of 6on of 4%hesus, and had no notion of his merits or defectsF 687( 6 cannot deny what you say, =ocrates) 7e*ertheless 6 am conscious in my own self, and the world agrees with me in thin-ing that 6 do s%eabetter and ha*e more to say about 2omer than any other man) But 6 do not s%ea- e.ually well about othersGtell me the reason of this) =8?3A04=( 6 %ercei*e, 6on+ and 6 will %roceed to e5%lain to you what 6 imagine to be the reason of this) 0he gift which you %ossess of s%ea-ing e5cellently about 2omer is not an art, but, as 6 was Dust saying, an ins%iration+ there is a di*inity mo*ing you, li-e that contained in the

1/"

stone which 4uri%ides calls a magnet, but which is commonly -nown as the stone of 2eraclea) 0his stone not only attracts iron rings, but also im%arts to them a similar %ower of attracting other rings+ and sometimes you may see a number of %ieces of iron and rings sus%ended from one another so as to form .uite a long chain( and all of them deri*e their %ower of sus%ension from the original stone) 6n li-e manner the 9use first of all ins%ires men herself+ and from these ins%ired %ersons a chain of other %ersons is sus%ended, who ta-e the ins%iration) Eor all good %oets, e%ic as well as lyric, com%ose their beautiful %oems not by art, but because they are ins%ired and %ossessed) And as the ?orybantian re*ellers when they dance are not in their right mind, so the lyric %oets are not in their right mind when they are com%osing their beautiful strains( but when falling under the %ower of music and metre they are ins%ired and %ossessed+ li-e Bacchic maidens who draw mil- and honey from the ri*ers when they are under the influence of 1ionysus but not when they are in their right mind) And the soul of the lyric %oet does the same, as they themsel*es say+ for they tell us that they bring songs from honeyed fountains, culling them out of the gardens and dells of the 9uses+ they, li-e the bees, winging their way from flower to flower) And this is true) Eor the %oet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no in*ention in him until he has been ins%ired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him( when he has not attained to this state, he is %owerless and is unable to utter his oracles) 9any are the noble words in which %oets s%ea- concerning the actions of men+ but li-e yourself when s%ea-ing about 2omer, they do not s%ea- of them by any rules of art( they are sim%ly ins%ired to utter that to which the 9use im%els them, and that only+ and when ins%ired, one of them will ma-e dithyrambs, another hymns of %raise, another choral strains, another e%ic or iambic *ersesGand he who is good at one is not good at any other -ind of *erse( for not by art does the %oet sing, but by %ower di*ine) 2ad he learned by rules of art, he would ha*e -nown how to s%ea- not of one theme only, but of all+ and therefore ,od ta-es away the minds of %oets, and uses them as his ministers, as he also uses di*iners and holy %ro%hets, in order that we who hear them may -now them to be s%ea-ing not of themsel*es who utter these %riceless words in a state of unconsciousness, but that ,od himself is the s%ea-er, and that through them he is con*ersing with us) And 0ynnichus the ?halcidian affords a stri-ing instance of what 6 am saying( he wrote nothing that any one would care to remember but the famous %aean which is in e*ery ones mouth, one of the finest %oems e*er written, sim%ly an in*ention of the 9uses, as he himself says) Eor in this way the ,od would seem to indicate to us and not allow us to doubt that these beautiful %oems are not human, or the wor- of man, but di*ine and the wor- of ,od+ and that the %oets are only the inter%reters of the ,ods by whom they are se*erally %ossessed) /as not this the lesson which the ,od intended to teach when by the mouth of the worst of %oets he sang the best of songsF Am 6 not right, 6onF

1//

687( Ies, indeed, =ocrates, 6 feel that you are+ for your words touch my soul, and 6 am %ersuaded that good %oets by a di*ine ins%iration inter%ret the things of the ,ods to us) =8?3A04=( And you rha%sodists are the inter%reters of the %oetsF 687( 0here again you are right) =8?3A04=( 0hen you are the inter%reters of inter%retersF 687( Precisely) =8?3A04=( 6 wish you would fran-ly tell me, 6on, what 6 am going to asof you( /hen you %roduce the greatest effect u%on the audience in the recitation of some stri-ing %assage, such as the a%%arition of 8dysseus lea%ing forth on the floor, recogniHed by the suitors and casting his arrows at his feet, or the descri%tion of Achilles rushing at 2ector, or the sorrows of Andromache, 2ecuba, or Priam,Gare you in your right mindF Are you not carried out of yourself, and does not your soul in an ecstasy seem to be among the %ersons or %laces of which you are s%ea-ing, whether they are in 6thaca or in 0roy or whate*er may be the scene of the %oemF 687( 0hat %roof stri-es home to me, =ocrates) Eor 6 must fran-ly confess that at the tale of %ity my eyes are filled with tears, and when 6 s%ea- of horrors, my hair stands on end and my heart throbs) =8?3A04=( /ell, 6on, and what are we to say of a man who at a sacrifice or festi*al, when he is dressed in holiday attire, and has golden crowns u%on his head, of which nobody has robbed him, a%%ears wee%ing or %anic"stric-en in the %resence of more than twenty thousand friendly faces, when there is no one des%oiling or wronging him+Gis he in his right mind or is he notF 687( 7o indeed, =ocrates, 6 must say that, strictly s%ea-ing, he is not in his right mind) =8?3A04=( And are you aware that you %roduce similar effects on most of the s%ectatorsF 687( 8nly too well+ for 6 loo- down u%on them from the stage, and behold the *arious emotions of %ity, wonder, sternness, stam%ed u%on their countenances when 6 am s%ea-ing( and 6 am obliged to gi*e my *ery best attention to them+ for if 6 ma-e them cry 6 myself shall laugh, and if 6 ma-e them laugh 6 myself shall cry when the time of %ayment arri*es) =8?3A04=( 1o you -now that the s%ectator is the last of the rings which, as 6 am saying, recei*e the %ower of the original magnet from one anotherF 0he rha%sode li-e yourself and the actor are intermediate lin-s, and the %oet himself is the first of them) 0hrough all these the ,od sways the souls of men in any direction which he %leases, and ma-es one man hang down from another) 0hus there is a *ast chain of dancers and masters and under" masters of choruses, who are sus%ended, as if from the stone, at the side of the rings which hang down from the 9use)

1/.

And e*ery %oet has some 9use from whom he is sus%ended, and by whom he is said to be %ossessed, which is nearly the same thing+ for he is ta-en hold of) And from these first rings, which are the %oets, de%end others, some deri*ing their ins%iration from 8r%heus, others from 9usaeus+ but the greater number are %ossessed and held by 2omer) 8f whom, 6on, you are one, and are %ossessed by 2omer+ and when any one re%eats the words of another %oet you go to slee%, and -now not what to say+ but when any one recites a strain of 2omer you wa-e u% in a moment, and your soul lea%s within you, and you ha*e %lenty to say+ for not by art or -nowledge about 2omer do you say what you say, but by di*ine ins%iration and by %ossession+ Dust as the ?orybantian re*ellers too ha*e a .uic- %erce%tion of that strain only which is a%%ro%riated to the ,od by whom they are %ossessed, and ha*e %lenty of dances and words for that, but ta-e no heed of any other) And you, 6on, when the name of 2omer is mentioned ha*e %lenty to say, and ha*e nothing to say of others) Iou as-, /hy is thisF 0he answer is that you %raise 2omer not by art but by di*ine ins%iration) 687( 0hat is good, =ocrates+ and yet 6 doubt whether you will e*er ha*e elo.uence enough to %ersuade me that 6 %raise 2omer only when 6 am mad and %ossessed+ and if you could hear me s%ea- of him 6 am sure you would ne*er thin- this to be the case) =8?3A04=( 6 should li-e *ery much to hear you, but not until you ha*e answered a .uestion which 6 ha*e to as-) 8n what %art of 2omer do you s%ea- wellFGnot surely about e*ery %art) 687( 0here is no %art, =ocrates, about which 6 do not s%ea- well( of that 6 can assure you) =8?3A04=( =urely not about things in 2omer of which you ha*e no -nowledgeF 687( And what is there in 2omer of which 6 ha*e no -nowledgeF =8?3A04=( /hy, does not 2omer s%ea- in many %assages about artsF Eor e5am%le, about dri*ing+ if 6 can only remember the lines 6 will re%eat them) 687( 6 remember, and will re%eat them) =8?3A04=( 0ell me then, what 7estor says to Antilochus, his son, where he bids him be careful of the turn at the horserace in honour of Patroclus) 687( Bend gently, he says, in the %olished chariot to the left of them, and urge the horse on the right hand with whi% and *oice+ and slac-en the rein) And when you are at the goal, let the left horse draw near, yet so that the na*e of the well"wrought wheel may not e*en seem to touch the e5tremity+ and a*oid catching the stone (6l)$) =8?3A04=( 4nough) 7ow, 6on, will the charioteer or the %hysician be the better Dudge of the %ro%riety of these linesF

1/2

687( 0he charioteer, clearly) =8?3A04=( And will the reason be that this is his art, or will there be any other reasonF 687( 7o, that will be the reason) =8?3A04=( And e*ery art is a%%ointed by ,od to ha*e -nowledge of a certain wor-+ for that which we -now by the art of the %ilot we do not -now by the art of medicineF 687( ?ertainly not) =8?3A04=( 7or do we -now by the art of the car%enter that which we -now by the art of medicineF 687( ?ertainly not) =8?3A04=( And this is true of all the arts+Gthat which we -now with one art we do not -now with the otherF But let me as- a %rior .uestion( Iou admit that there are differences of artsF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( Iou would argue, as 6 should, that when one art is of one -ind of -nowledge and another of another, they are differentF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( Ies, surely+ for if the subDect of -nowledge were the same, there would be no meaning in saying that the arts were different,Gif they both ga*e the same -nowledge) Eor e5am%le, 6 -now that here are fi*e fingers, and you -now the same) And if 6 were to as- whether 6 and you became ac.uainted with this fact by the hel% of the same art of arithmetic, you would ac-nowledge that we didF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( 0ell me, then, what 6 was intending to as- you,Gwhether this holds uni*ersallyF 9ust the same art ha*e the same subDect of -nowledge, and different arts other subDects of -nowledgeF 687( 0hat is my o%inion, =ocrates) =8?3A04=( 0hen he who has no -nowledge of a %articular art will ha*e no right Dudgment of the sayings and doings of that artF 687( Cery true) =8?3A04=( 0hen which will be a better Dudge of the lines which you were reciting from 2omer, you or the charioteerF 687( 0he charioteer) =8?3A04=( /hy, yes, because you are a rha%sode and not a charioteer) 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( And the art of the rha%sode is different from that of the

1/,

charioteerF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( And if a different -nowledge, then a -nowledge of different mattersF 687( 0rue) =8?3A04=( Iou -now the %assage in which 2ecamede, the concubine of 7estor, is described as gi*ing to the wounded 9achaon a %osset, as he says, 9ade with Pramnian wine+ and she grated cheese of goats milwith a grater of bronHe, and at his side %laced an onion which gi*es a relish to drin-) (6l)$ 7ow would you say that the art of the rha%sode or the art of medicine was better able to Dudge of the %ro%riety of these linesF 687( 0he art of medicine) =8?3A04=( And when 2omer says, And she descended into the dee% li-e a leaden %lummet, which, set in the horn of o5 that ranges in the fields, rushes along carrying death among the ra*enous fishes (6l)$, G will the art of the fisherman or of the rha%sode be better able to Dudge whether these lines are rightly e5%ressed or notF 687( ?learly, =ocrates, the art of the fisherman) =8?3A04=( ?ome now, su%%ose that you were to say to me( =ince you, =ocrates, are able to assign different %assages in 2omer to their corres%onding arts, 6 wish that you would tell me what are the %assages of which the e5cellence ought to be Dudged by the %ro%het and %ro%hetic art+ and you will see how readily and truly 6 shall answer you) Eor there are many such %assages, %articularly in the 8dyssee+ as, for e5am%le, the %assage in which 0heoclymenus the %ro%het of the house of 9elam%us says to the suitors(G /retched menJ what is ha%%ening to youF Iour heads and your faces and your limbs underneath are shrouded in night+ and the *oice of lamentation bursts forth, and your chee-s are wet with tears) And the *estibule is full, and the court is full, of ghosts descending into the dar-ness of 4rebus, and the sun has %erished out of hea*en, and an e*il mist is s%read abroad) (8d)$ And there are many such %assages in the 6liad also+ as for e5am%le in the descri%tion of the battle near the ram%art, where he says(G As they were eager to %ass the ditch, there came to them an omen( a soaring eagle, holding bac- the %eo%le on the left, bore a huge bloody dragon in his talons, still li*ing and %anting+ nor had he yet resigned the strife, for he bent bac- and smote the bird

1/-

which carried him on the breast by the nec-, and he in %ain let him fall from him to the ground into the midst of the multitude) And the eagle, with a cry, was borne afar on the wings of the wind) (6l)$ 0hese are the sort of things which 6 should say that the %ro%het ought to consider and determine) 687( And you are .uite right, =ocrates, in saying so) =8?3A04=( Ies, 6on, and you are right also) And as 6 ha*e selected from the 6liad and 8dyssee for you %assages which describe the office of the %ro%het and the %hysician and the fisherman, do you, who -now 2omer so much better than 6 do, 6on, select for me %assages which relate to the rha%sode and the rha%sodes art, and which the rha%sode ought to e5amine and Dudge of better than other men) 687( All %assages, 6 should say, =ocrates) =8?3A04=( 7ot all, 6on, surely) 2a*e you already forgotten what you were sayingF A rha%sode ought to ha*e a better memory) 687( /hy, what am 6 forgettingF =8?3A04=( 1o you not remember that you declared the art of the rha%sode to be different from the art of the charioteerF 687( Ies, 6 remember) =8?3A04=( And you admitted that being different they would ha*e different subDects of -nowledgeF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( 0hen u%on your own showing the rha%sode, and the art of the rha%sode, will not -now e*erythingF 687( 6 should e5clude certain things, =ocrates) =8?3A04=( Iou mean to say that you would e5clude %retty much the subDects of the other arts) As he does not -now all of them, which of them will he -nowF 687( 2e will -now what a man and what a woman ought to say, and what a freeman and what a sla*e ought to say, and what a ruler and what a subDect) =8?3A04=( 1o you mean that a rha%sode will -now better than the %ilot what the ruler of a sea"tossed *essel ought to sayF 687( 7o+ the %ilot will -now best) =8?3A04=( 8r will the rha%sode -now better than the %hysician what the ruler of a sic- man ought to sayF 687( 2e will not) =8?3A04=( But he will -now what a sla*e ought to sayF

1/+

687( Ies) =8?3A04=( =u%%ose the sla*e to be a cowherd+ the rha%sode will -now better than the cowherd what he ought to say in order to soothe the infuriated cowsF 687( 7o, he will not) =8?3A04=( But he will -now what a s%inning"woman ought to say about the wor-ing of woolF 687( 7o) =8?3A04=( At any rate he will -now what a general ought to say when e5horting his soldiersF 687( Ies, that is the sort of thing which the rha%sode will be sure to -now) =8?3A04=( /ell, but is the art of the rha%sode the art of the generalF 687( 6 am sure that 6 should -now what a general ought to say) =8?3A04=( /hy, yes, 6on, because you may %ossibly ha*e a -nowledge of the art of the general as well as of the rha%sode+ and you may also ha*e a -nowledge of horsemanshi% as well as of the lyre( and then you would -now when horses were well or ill managed) But su%%ose 6 were to as- you( By the hel% of which art, 6on, do you -now whether horses are well managed, by your s-ill as a horseman or as a %erformer on the lyre Gwhat would you answerF 687( 6 should re%ly, by my s-ill as a horseman) =8?3A04=( And if you Dudged of %erformers on the lyre, you would admit that you Dudged of them as a %erformer on the lyre, and not as a horsemanF 687( Ies) =8?3A04=( And in Dudging of the generals art, do you Dudge of it as a general or a rha%sodeF 687( 0o me there a%%ears to be no difference between them) =8?3A04=( /hat do you meanF 1o you mean to say that the art of the rha%sode and of the general is the sameF 687( Ies, one and the same) =8?3A04=( 0hen he who is a good rha%sode is also a good generalF 687( ?ertainly, =ocrates) =8?3A04=( And he who is a good general is also a good rha%sodeF 687( 7o+ 6 do not say that) =8?3A04=( But you do say that he who is a good rha%sode is also a good general)

1.0

687( ?ertainly) =8?3A04=( And you are the best of 2ellenic rha%sodesF 687( Ear the best, =ocrates) =8?3A04=( And are you the best general, 6onF 687( 0o be sure, =ocrates+ and 2omer was my master) =8?3A04=( But then, 6on, what in the name of goodness can be the reason why you, who are the best of generals as well as the best of rha%sodes in all 2ellas, go about as a rha%sode when you might be a generalF 1o you thin- that the 2ellenes want a rha%sode with his golden crown, and do not want a generalF 687( /hy, =ocrates, the reason is, that my countrymen, the 4%hesians, are the ser*ants and soldiers of Athens, and do not need a general+ and you and =%arta are not li-ely to ha*e me, for you thin- that you ha*e enough generals of your own) =8?3A04=( 9y good 6on, did you ne*er hear of A%ollodorus of ?yHicusF 687( /ho may he beF =8?3A04=( 8ne who, though a foreigner, has often been chosen their general by the Athenians( and there is Phanosthenes of Andros, and 2eraclides of ?laHomenae, whom they ha*e also a%%ointed to the command of their armies and to other offices, although aliens, after they had shown their merit) And will they not choose 6on the 4%hesian to be their general, and honour him, if he %ro*e himself worthyF /ere not the 4%hesians originally Athenians, and 4%hesus is no mean cityF But, indeed, 6on, if you are correct in saying that by art and -nowledge you are able to %raise 2omer, you do not deal fairly with me, and after all your %rofessions of -nowing many glorious things about 2omer, and %romises that you would e5hibit them, you are only a decei*er, and so far from e5hibiting the art of which you are a master, will not, e*en after my re%eated entreaties, e5%lain to me the nature of it) Iou ha*e literally as many forms as Proteus+ and now you go all manner of ways, twisting and turning, and, li-e Proteus, become all manner of %eo%le at once, and at last sli% away from me in the disguise of a general, in order that you may esca%e e5hibiting your 2omeric lore) And if you ha*e art, then, as 6 was saying, in falsifying your %romise that you would e5hibit 2omer, you are not dealing fairly with me) But if, as 6 belie*e, you ha*e no art, but s%ea- all these beautiful words about 2omer unconsciously under his ins%iring influence, then 6 ac.uit you of dishonesty, and shall only say that you are ins%ired) /hich do you %refer to be thought, dishonest or ins%iredF 687( 0here is a great difference, =ocrates, between the two alternati*es+ and ins%iration is by far the nobler) =8?3A04=( 0hen, 6on, 6 shall assume the nobler alternati*e+ and attribute to you in your %raises of 2omer ins%iration, and not art)

1.1

1.2

&.1 012*ISS*2"1

M * c !n%e of cu(tur!( $!r!di%)< fro) t e #edie>!( to t e )odern one. M & e rebirt of t e c(!ssic!(8!ncient Hree@ !nd 0o)!n >!(ues in $ i(oso$ y< !rt< (iter!ture !nd (iter!ry t eory< et ics< but es$eci!((y in t e -!y )!n -!s re%!rded. #*2 beco)es t e centre of t e 9ni>erse< !nd is re%!rded not on(y !s ! re(i%ious bein%< (i@e in t e #idd(e *%es< but !s ! >ery co)$(e: cre!ture (re(i%ious *2D )or!(< bio(o%ic!(< !est etic< inte((ectu!(< etc.). .9#*2IS# M re!ssess)ent of t e c(!ssics` >!(uesG t e inte((ectu!(< $ i(oso$ ic!( trend of t e 0en!iss!nce. t e be(ief in )!n`s fund!)ent!( c!$!city for i)$ro>in% i)se(f< is )ind< is (ife< is -or(d. MMa 1duc!tion -!s t e )!in concern of t e 1n%(is u)!nists (!(so c!((ed educ!tionists). It -!s b!sed on t e )edie>!( tri!ium (%r!))!r< (o%ic !nd r etoric) !nd t e 5uadri!ium (!rit )etic< %eo)etry< !stro(o%y< !nd )usic)< -it s$eci!( e)$ !sis on r etoric !nd c(!ssic!( te:ts. "L*SSI"*L #+D1LS in (iter!ry t eory: *ristot(e: $oetry is i)it!tion (mimesis) of 2!ture t e !i)s of $oetry: to instruct< to )o>e< to de(i% t ru(es: t e t ree unities: of !ction (one $(ot)< of ti)e (2/ ours)< of $(!ce (one city) (!n%u!%e< sty(e< $rosody M discourse8 diction decoru): usin% t e !$$ro$ri!te diction to $resent s$ecific ty$es of c !r!cters !nd !ctions MMa c(!ssific!tion of %enres t e need to c oose !nd !d!$t (!n%u!%e< sty(e< r etoric!( fi%ures to e!c %enre .or!ce: functions of $oetry: docere, delectare, mo!ere bmisce utile dulcib ()i: t e usefu( -it t e entert!inin%) but pictura poesisb (!s in $!intin% so in $oetry) M $oetry ou% t to be ! >isu!( !s -e(( !s ! >erb!( !rt< so !s to be seen -it t e )ind`s eye !s i)!%es.

1."

=63 38,43 A=?2A9 Erom The "cholemaster (15#0$

B88K 874 L18<B;4 03A7=;A0687M Eirst, let him Lthe scholemasterM teach the childe, cherefullie and %lainlie, the cause, and matter of the letter( then, let him construe it into 4nglishe, so oft, as the childe may easilie carie awaie the *nderstanding of it( ;astlie, %arse it ouer %erfitlie) 0his done thus, let the childe, by and by, both construe and %arse it ouer againe( so, that it may a%%eare, that the childe douteth in nothing, that his master taught him before) After this, the childe must ta-e a %a%er boo-e, and sitting in some %lace, where no man shall %rom%e him, by him self, let him translate into 4nglishe his former lesson) 0hen shewing it to his master, let the master ta-e from him his latin boo-e, and %ausing an houre, at the least, than let the childe translate his owne 4nglishe into latin againe, in an other %a%er boo-e) /hen the childe bringeth it, turned into latin, the master must com%are it with 0ullies boo-e, and laie them both togither( and where the childe doth well, either in chosing, or true %lacing of 0ullies wordes, let the master %raise him, and saie here ye do well) Eor 6 assure you, there is no such whetstone, to shar%en a good witte and encourage a will to learninge, as is %raise) But if the childe misse, either in forgetting a worde, or in chaunging a good with a worse, or misordering the sentence, 6 would not haue the master, either froune, or chide with him, if the childe haue done his diligence, and *sed no trewandshi% therein) Eor 6 -now by good e5%erience, that a childe shall ta-e more %rofit of two fautes, ientlie warned of, then of foure thinges, rightly hitt)N L024 =?288;9A=043O= A0060<14M 6f your scholer do misse sometimes, in mar-ing rightlie these foresaid si5e thinges LPro%ria, 0ranslata, =ynonyma, 1iuersa, ?ontraria, PhrasesM!, chide not hastelie( for that shall, both dull his witte, and discorage his diligence( but monish him gentelie( which shall ma-e him, both willing to amende, and glad to go forward in loue and ho%e of learning) 6 haue now wished, twise or thrise, this gentle nature, to be in a =cholemaster( And, that 6 haue done so, neither by chance, nor without some reason, 6 will now declare at large, why, in mine o%inion, loue is fitter than feare, ientlenes better than beating, to bring *% a childe
2

9ateg(ries int( ;hich Ascha3 divides ;(rds acc(rding t( their 3eaning, and ;hich the student sh(uld be able t( rec(gnise aBter having d(ne the d(uble translati(n (B a teFt.

1./

rightlie in learninge) N 6 do gladlie agree with all good =cholemasters in these %ointes( to haue children brought to good %erfitnes in learning( to all honestie in maners( to haue all fautes rightlie amended( to haue euerie *ice seuerelie corrected( but for the order and waie that leadeth rightlie to these %ointes, we somewhat differ) Eor commonlie, many scholemasters, some, as 6 haue seen, moe, as 6 haue heard tell, be of so croo-ed a nature, as, when they meete with a hard witted scholer, they rather brea-e him, than bowe him, rather marre him, then mend him)

1..

=63 38,43 A=?2A9 8n 6mitatio& (The "cholemaster$ (15#0$

Auth(r Ba3(us B(r atte3?ting t( i3?(se a ne; d(ctrine in the educati(n (B y(ung arist(crats, based (n i3itati(n/ d(uble translati(n (B the ancients and gentle 3eth(ds. The #cholemaster regards the triviu3. )n it the auth(r eF?resses the ?ervading (?ini(n that !nglish ?(etry, under the inBluence (B )talian ?(etry, has bec(3e a s(urce (B lies, deceits, and bad 3(rals and 3anners, and that (nly the ancients[ literature is ;(rth any attenti(n. P(esy M everything that is ;ritten B(r the reading ?ublic. Ai3 (B ?(etry# t( teach. P(etry M the art (B c(nveying a 3essage accurately. the auth(r has a great res?(nsibility t(;ards th(se he 3ight inBluence, thereB(re 3ust be as 3indBul (B his style as (B his 3essage. )3itati(n M d(uble translati(n, Br(3 Latin int( !nglish and then bac= int( Latin, c(3?aring the result ;ith the (riginal, in (rder t( learn the Latin language, but als( in (rder t( learn the art (B rhet(ric, (B addressing ?e(?le. Geni dicendi 0styles1# tenue 0l(;1# c(3edies, lyrical ?(e3s 0the classical divisi(n1 mediocre# e?ic ?(e3s grande 0high1# tragedies Ascha3[s classiBicati(n# Genus P(eticu3# 9(3icu3, >ragicu3, !?icu3, 4elicu3 Genus 5ist(ricu3# @iaria, Annales, 9(33entari(s, )usta3 5ist(ria3 Genus Phil(s(?hicu3# Ser3(ne3, 9(ntenti(ne3 Genus Erat(riu3# 5u3ile, 4edi(cre, Subli3e As?ects t( be al;ays ta=en int( c(nsiderati(n ;hen assessing literature# 3atter utterance and ;(rds 3eter Attitude t(;ards versiBicati(n# blan= verse is ?reBerred t( the \barbaric\ rhy3e (B the )talians. All g((d ?(etry ste3s Br(3 Plat( and Arist(tle in Gree= literature and >ully in Latin. !Fa3?les# 9aesar, :arr(, Salustus V c(nteFtualiOati(n (B their ;(r=.

1.2

=63 P26;6P =6174I 8n The Defence of Poesy # An Apology for Poetry (15 5$
Auth(r Ba3(us B(r the Birst l(ng and (riginal ?ast(ral Bicti(n in !nglish 0 Arcadia, 1.+0, 120"1, the best c(llecti(n (B !liOabethan s(nnets 0Astro!hil and #tella, 1.+11, and the Birst i3?(rtant ;(r= (B literary the(ry 0The Defence of Poesy1. The Defence ;as ;ritten in res?(nse t( Ste?hen G(ss(n[s b((= The #chool of A)use 01.,+1, dedicated t( Sir Phili? Sidney, in ;hich the auth(r sc(rns ?(etry Br(3 a narr(;ly Puritan ?(int (B vie;. @eBiniti(n (B ?(etry# \an arte (B i3itati(n, B(r s( Arist(tle ter3eth it in his ;(rd 4i3esisU a re?resenting, c(unterBetting, (r Biguring B((rth# t( s?ea=e 3eta?h(rically, a s?ea=ing ?icture\ Ai3s (B ?(etry# \t( teach and delight,\ but als( t( 3(ve 0t( stir Beelings in the reader, but als( t( ?ersuade, in (rder t( instruct1. >he P(et M :ates 0Latin, ?r(?het1 P(ietes 0Gree=, creat(r, 3a=er1 the divine (rigin (B ?(etry. P(etry M the Birst and 3(st c(3?leF 3eans (B rec(rding the true values (B hu3an=ind 0c(urage, gener(sity, ?atri(tis3, etc.1, c(3bining the the(retical ?re(ccu?ati(ns (B ?hil(s(?hy ;ith the illustrati(n (B these ?rece?ts by hist(ry, and thus Bacilitating learning. Kinds (B )3itati(n# )3itati(n (B G(d 0divine ?(etry1 )3itati(n (B ?hil(s(?hy# 3(ral, natural, astr(n(3ical, hist(rical )3itati(n (B \;hat 3ay be, and ;hat sh(uld be\ 0divine, li=e the Birst =ind, but inv(lving i3aginati(n1# \5er(ic=, Liric=, >ragic=, 9(3ic=, Satiric=, )a3bic=, !legiac=, Past(rall,\ S(nnet, etc. P(etry M i3itati(n (B *ature, but creating an idealised ;(rld, g(verned by (rder, har3(ny, 3easure, ?r(?(rti(n, beauty. Ahy3e is an instance (B disci?lining the teFt, thereB(re is ?reBerred t( blan= verse. >he c(nte3?(rary !nglish ?(ets are deBended against the %ysomousoi 0?(etry-haters1# P(etry d(es n(t tell lies because it d(es n(t aBBir3 anything, it (nly ?resents things, leaving it t( the reader t( c(nstruct his (;n truth. 9urse (n th(se ;h( d( n(t l(ve ?(etry# "ut if Ifie of such a )utJ you )ee )orne so neare the dull/ma;ing 'ataract of Nilus$ that you cannot heare the Planet/li;e %usic;e of PoetrieD if you have so earth/ cree!ing a mind that it cannot lift it selfe u! to loo;e to the s;ie of Poetrie$ or rather )y a certaine rusticall disdaine$ wil )ecome such a mome$ as to )ee a %omus of Poetrie7 then though will not wish unto you the Asses eares of %idas$ nor to )e driven )y a Poets verses as "u)ona& was$ to hang himselfe$ nor to )e rimed to death as is said to )e done in reland$ yet thus much 'urse must send you in the )ehalfe of all Poets$ that while you live$ you live in love$ and never get favour$ for lac;ing s;ill of a #onet$ and when you die$ your memorie die from the earth for want of an E!ita!he.

1.,

B47 >87=87 Erom $olpone

Prologue 7ow, luc- yet send us, and a little wit /ill ser*e to ma-e our %lay hit+ (According to the %alates of the season$ 2ere is rhime, not em%ty of reason) 0his we were bid to credit from our %oet, /hose true sco%e, if you would -now it, 6n all his %oems still hath been this measure, 0o mi5 %rofit with your %leasure+ And not as some, whose throats their en*y failing, ?ry hoarsely, All he writes is railing( And when his %lays come forth, thin- they can flout them, /ith saying, he was a year about them) 0o this there needs no lie, but this his creature, /hich was two months since no feature+ And though he dares gi*e them fi*e li*es to mend it, 0is -nown, fi*e wee-s fully %ennd it, Erom his own hand+ without a co"adDutor, 7o*ice, Dourney" man, or tutor) Iet thus much 6 can gi*e you as a to-en 8f his %lays worth, no eggs are bro-en, 7or .ua-ing custards with fierce teeth affrighted, /herewith your rout are so delighted+ 7or hales he in a gull old ends reciting, 0o sto% ga%s in his loose writing+ /ith such a deal of monstrous and forced action, As might ma-e Bethlem a faction( 7or made he his %lay for Dests stolen from each table, But ma-es Dests to fit his fable+ And so %resents .uic- comedy refined, As best critics ha*e designed+ 0he laws of time, %lace, %ersons he obser*eth, Erom no needful rule he swer*eth) All gall and co%%eras from his in- he draineth, 8nly a little salt remaineth, /herewith hell rub your chee-s, till red, with laughter, 0hey shall loo- fresh a wee- after)

1.-

0o the 9emory of 9y Belo*ed 9aster /illiam =ha-s%eare, And /hat 2e 2ath ;eft <s&
0o draw no en*y, =2AK=P4A34, on thy name, Am 6 thus am%le to thy boo- and fame+ /hile 6 confess thy writings to be such, As neither 9an nor 9use can %raise too much) O0is true, and all menOs suffrage) But these ways /ere not the %aths 6 meant unto thy %raise+ Eor seeliest ignorance on these may light, /hich, when it sounds at best, but echoes right+ 8r blind affection, which doth neOer ad*ance 0he truth, but gro%es, and urgeth all by chance+ 8r crafty malice might %retend this %raise, And thin- to ruin where it seemed to raise) 0hese are, as some infamous bawd or whore =hould %raise a matron+ what could hurt her moreF But thou art %roof against them, and, indeed, Abo*e the ill fortune of them, or the need) 6 therefore will begin( =oul of the ageJ 0he a%%lauseJ delightJ the wonder of our stageJ 9y =2AK=P4A34, riseJ 6 will not lodge thee by ?haucer or =%enser, or bid Beaumont lie A little further to ma-e thee a room( 0hou art a monument without a tomb, And art ali*e still while thy boo- doth li*e And we ha*e wits to read, and %raise to gi*e) 0hat 6 not mi5 thee so, my brain e5cuses, 6 mean with great, but dis%ro%ortioned 9uses( Eor, if 6 thought my Dudgment were of years, 6 should commit thee surely with thy %eers, And tell how far thou didst our ;yly outshine, 8r s%orting Kyd, or 9arloweOs mighty line) And though thou hadst small ;atin and less ,ree-, Erom thence to honour thee, 6 would not seeEor names( but call forth thundOring Aeschylus, 4uri%ides, and =o%hocles to us, Pacu*ius, Accius, him of ?ordo*a dead, 0o life again, to hear thy bus-in tread And sha-e a stage( or when thy soc-s were on, ;ea*e thee alone for the com%arison 8f all that insolent ,reece or haughty 3ome =ent forth, or since did from their ashes come) 0rium%h, my Britain, thou hast one to show 0o whom all =cenes of 4uro%e homage owe) 2e was not of an age, but for all timeJ And all the 9uses still were in their %rime,

1.+

/hen, li-e A%ollo, he came forth to warm 8ur ears, or li-e a 9ercury to charmJ 7ature herself was %roud of his designs, And Doyed to wear the dressing of his linesJ /hich were so richly s%un, and wo*en so fit, As, since, she will *ouchsafe no other wit) 0he merry ,ree-, tart Aristo%hanes, 7eat 0erence, witty Plautus, now not %lease+ But anti.uated and deserted lie, As they were not of 7atureOs family) Iet must 6 not gi*e 7ature all+ thy art, 9y gentle =ha-s%eare, must enDoy a %art) Eor though the %oetOs matter nature be, 2is art doth gi*e the fashion( and, that he /ho casts to write a li*ing line, must sweat, (=uch as thine are$ and stri-e the second heat <%on the 9usesO an*il+ turn the same, And himself with it, that he thin-s to frame+ 8r for the laurel he may gain a scorn+ Eor a good %oetOs made, as well as born) And such wert thouJ ;oo- how the fatherOs face ;i*es in his issue, e*en so the race 8f =ha-s%eareOs mind and manners brightly shines 6n his well"turned and true"filed lines+ 6n each of which he seems to sha-e a lance, As brandisht at the eyes of ignorance) =weet =wan of A*onJ what a sight it were 0o see thee in our waters yet a%%ear, And ma-e those flights u%on the ban-s of 0hames, 0hat so did ta-e 4liHa, and our >amesJ But stay, 6 see thee in the hemis%here Ad*anced, and made a constellation thereJ =hine forth, thou =tar of Poets, and with rage 8r influence chide or cheer the droo%ing stage, /hich, since thy flight from hence, hath mourned li-e night, And des%airs day, but for thy *olumeOs light)

120

21+"L*SSI"IS#
M $!rt of t e 1n(i% ten)ent in 1uro$e!n cu(ture: bDescribed )ost si)$(y< it -!s ! re!ction !%!inst t e intric!cy !nd occ!sion!( obscurity< bo(dness< !nd e:tr!>!%!nce of 1uro$e!n (iter!ture of t e (!te 0en!iss!nce< in f!>our of %re!ter si)$(icity< c(!rity< restr!int< re%u(!rity< !nd %ood senseb (The 0orton Anthology of *nglish Literature< 1993< >o(. I< $. 177/). M *u%ust!n *%e C stron%(y inf(uenced by t e -riters (,ir%i(< .or!ce< +>id) of t e rei%n of t e first 0o)!n e)$eror *u%ustus "!es!r< Iust before t e be%innin% of t e " risti!n er!. "L*SSI"*L #+D1LS: t e s!)e !s for t e 0en!iss!nce J1FW+0DS: 2!ture M !est etic obIect (to be !d)ired) obIect of scientific in;uiry obIect of re(i%ious conte)$(!tion obIect of i)it!tion for !rt !nd es$eci!((y for $oetry< recre!ted by t e $oet (b$oietesb C Hree@: )!@er) etern!( trut uni>ers!( (!-s of n!ture u)!n n!ture (W u)!n e:$erience) t e su) of indi>idu!(s !nd indi>idu!(ities t e -or(d bout t ere<b -i(derness

M (!ter on: Wit

M bf!ncyb or bi)!%in!tionb bt ou% ts !nd -ords e(e%!nt(y !d!$ted to t e subIectb (Dryden) it !d to be t!)ed by: bIud%)entb bdecoru)b (t e !$$ro$ri!te) -it out su$$ressin% $!ssion< ener%y< or ori%in!(ity.

L*2H9*H1 C c !r!cterised by: $ersonific!tion $eri$ r!sis (!n e(e%!nt -!y of !>oidin% co))on -ords) stoc@ !nd !rtifici!( $ r!ses -ords used in t e ori%in!( L!tin )e!nin% fondness of !dIecti>es endin% in y (Words-ort < 'ref!ce to Lyrical Ballads) )!nneris) ,10SI4I"*&I+2 .eroic cou$(et M ! $ent!)eter cou$(et usu!((y cont!inin% ! co)$(ete st!te)ent C c !r!cterised by $!r!((e(is)< b!(!nce< !ntit esis< c!esur! ?(!n@ >erse M unr y)ed i!)bic $ent!)eter )!nneris) !nd bo)b!st

121

>827 13I147 Essay of Dramatic% Poesy (written 1A#A"B, %ublished 1AB!$

6 -now no other .uarrel you can ha*e to Cerse, then that which =%urina had to his beauty, when he tore and mangled the features of his Eace, onely because they %leasd too well the loo-ers on) N to lead out a new ?olony of /riters from the 9other 7ationN ?aesarN not so much his business to condemn ?ato, as to %raise ?icero) N the drift of this ensuing 1iscourse was chiefly to *indicate the honour of our 4nglish /riters, from the centre of those who unDustly %refer the Erench before them) ?rites( N the %ublic magistrate ought to send betimes to forbid them Lbad %oetsM and that it concernd the %eace and .uiet of all honest %eo%le, that ill %oets should be as well silencd as seditious PreachersN 0here are so few who write well in this AgeN neither rise to the dignity of the last Age, nor to any of the AncientsN you ha*e debauched the old Poetry so far, that 7ature, which is the soul of it, is not in any of your /ritings) 4ugenius(N there is no man more ready to adore those great ,ree-s and 3omans than 6 am, butN 6 cannot tal- so contem%tibly of the age 6 li*e in, or so dishonourably of my own ?ountrey, as not to Dudge we e.ual to the Ancients in most -inds of Poesie, and in some sur%ass themN ;isideius( La %lay isM a Dust and li*ely 6mage of 2umane 7ature, re%resenting its Passions and 2umours, and the ?hanges of Eortune to which it is subDect+ for the 1elight and 6nstruction of 9an-ind) ?rites( L0he Ancients are su%erior because they were able to write good %oetry des%ite the fact thatM N Asian Kings and ,recian ?ommonwealths scarce afforded them Lthe AncientsM a better subDect Lthan theM unmanly lu5uries of a debauchd court, or the giddy intrigues of a Eactious city) ?rites( Ben >onsonN 0hat greatest man of the last ageN a learned %lagiaryN you trac- him e*erywhere in their Lthe AncientsM snowN 6 will %roduce Eather Ben to you, dressd in all the ornaments and colours of the Ancients) Iou will need no other guide to our %arty if you follow him) 4ugenius( /e draw not)) after their Lthe AncientsM lines, but those of 7atureN /hen 6 condemn the Ancients, it is not altogether because they ha*e not fi*e Acts to e*ery Play, but because they ha*e not confind themsel*es to one certain number+ tis building

122

an 2ouse without a 9odellN =he Lthe maid of *irtue& in the Ancients comediesM hadst the breeding of the old 4liHabeth way, for 9aids to be seen and not heard+ it is enough you -now she is willing to be married, when the Eifth Act re.uire it) L0he Ancient wereM 6mitati*e of 7ature, but so narrow as if they had imitated onely an eye or an 2and, and did not dare to *enture on the lines of a Eace, or the Pro%ortions of a Body) 7eander( N in most of the irregular Playes of =ha-es%eare or Eletcher (for Ben >onsons are for the most %art regular$ there is a more masculine fancy and greater s%irit in all the writing, then there is in many of the ErenchN =ha-es%eare, of all 9odern and %erha%s Ancient Poets, had the largest and most com%rehensi*e soul) 0hose who accuse him to ha*e wanted learning, gi*e him the greater commendation( he was naturally learned+ he needed not the s%ectacles of Boo-s to read 7ature+ he loo-ed inwards and found her there) =ha-es%eare was the 2omer, or Eather of our 1ramatic- Poets+ >onson was the Cirgil, the %attern of elaborate writing+ 6 admire him, but 6 lo*e =ha-es%eare) 0o conclude of him, as he has gi*en us most correct Plays, so in the %recedents which he has laid down his Disco&eries, we ha*e as many and %rofitable 3ules for %erfecting the =tage as any wherewith the Erench can furnish us) After this dialogue' the four spea%ers disem(ar% and part ways) 6rag3ents Br(3 an electr(nic teFt ?ublished by the University (B >(r(nt( 01++21. Accessible at# htt?#//;;;.library.ut(r(nt(.ca/utel/r?/criticis3/(B]dr]il.ht3l

12"

A;4PA7143 P8P4 Erom Essay on Criticism

N Eirst follow 7A0<34, and your >udgment frame By her Dust =tandard, which is still the same( <nerring 7ature, still di*inely bright, 8ne clear, unchangOd and <ni*ersal ;ight, ;ife, Eorce, and Beauty, must to all im%art, At once the =ource, and 4nd, and 0est of Art Art from that Eund each Dust =u%%ly %ro*ides, /or-s without =how, and without Pom% %resides( 6n some fair Body thus thO informing =oul /ith =%irits feeds, with Cigour fills the whole, 4ach 9otion guides, and e*Ory 7er*e sustains+ 6t self unseen, but in thO 4ffects, remains) =ome, to whom 2ea*On in /it has been %rofuse) /ant as much more, to turn it to its use, Eor /it and >udgment often are at strife, 0hoO meant each otherOs Aid, li-e 9an and /ife) O0is more to guide than s%ur the 9useOs =teed+ 3estrain his Eury, than %ro*o-e his =%eed+ 0he winged ?ourser, li-e a genOrous 2orse, =hows most true 9ettle when you chec- his ?ourse) 0hose 3<;4= of old disco*erOd, not de*isOd, Are 7ature still, but 7ature 9ethodiHOd+ 7ature, li-e ;iberty, is but restrainOd By the same ;aws which first herself ordainOd) 2ear how learnOd ,reece her useful 3ules indites, /hen to re%ress, and when indulge our Elights( 2igh on ParnassusO 0o% her =ons she showOd, And %ointed out those arduous Paths they trod, 2eld from afar, aloft, thO 6mmortal PriHe, And urgOd the rest by e.ual =te%s to rise+ >ust Prece%ts thus from great 45am%les gi*On, =he drew from them what they deri*Od from 2ea*On) 0he genOrous ?ritic- fannOd the PoetOs Eire, And taught the /orld, with 3eason to Admire) 0hen ?riticism the 9useOs 2andmaid %ro*Od, 0o dress her ?harms, and ma-e her more belo*Od+ N Iou then whose >udgment the right ?ourse wouOd steer, Know well each A7?6470Os %ro%er ?haracter, 2is Eable, =ubDect, =co%e in e*Ory Page,

12/

3eligion, ?ountry, ,enius of his Age( /ithout all these at once before your 4yes, ?a*il you may, but ne*er ?riticiHe) Be 2omerOs /or-s your =tudy, and 1elight, 3ead them by 1ay, and meditate by 7ight, 0hence form your >udgment, thence your 9a5ims bring, And trace the 9uses u%ward to their =%ring+ =till with 6t self com%arOd, his 0e5t %eruse+ And let your ?omment be the 9antuan 9use) N =ome Beauties yet, no Prece%ts can declare, Eor thereOs a 2a%%iness as well as ?are) 9usic- resembles Poetry, in each Are nameless ,races which no 9ethods teach, And which a 9aster"2and alone can reach) 6f, where the 3ules not far enough e5tend, (=ince 3ules were made but to %romote their 4nd$ =ome ;uc-y ;6?47?4 answers to the full 0hO 6ntent %ro%osOd, that ;icence is a 3ule) 0hus Pegasus, a nearer way to ta-e, 9ay boldly de*iate from the common 0rac-) ,reat /its sometimes may gloriously offend, And rise to Eaults true ?ritic-s dare not mend+ Erom *ulgar Bounds with bra*e 1isorder %art, And snatch a ,race beyond the 3each of Art, /hich, without %assing throO the >udgment, gains 0he 2eart, and all its 4nd at once attains) 6n Pros%ects, thus, some 8bDects %lease our 4yes, /hich out of 7atureOs common 8rder rise, 0he sha%eless 3oc-, or hanging Preci%ice) But thoO the Ancients thus their 3ules in*ade, (As Kings dis%ense with ;aws 0hemsel*es ha*e made$ 9oderns, bewareJ 8r if you must offend Against the Prece%t, neOer transgress its 4nd, ;et it be seldom, and com%ellOd by 7eed, And ha*e, at least, 0heir Precedent to %lead) 0he ?ritic- else %roceeds without 3emorse, =eiHes your Eame, and %uts his ;aws in force) N A little ;earning is a dangOrous 0hing+ 1rin- dee%, or taste not the Pierian =%ring( 0here shallow 1raughts into5icate the Brain, And drin-ing largely sobers us again) N A %erfect >udge will read each /or- of /it /ith the same =%irit that its Author writ, =ur*ey the /hole, nor see- slight Eaults to find,

12.

/here 7ature mo*es, and 3a%ture warms the 9ind+ 7or lose, for that malignant dull 1elight, 0he genOrous Pleasure to be charmOd with /it) But in such ;ays as neither ebb, nor flow, ?orrectly cold, and regularly low, 0hat shunning Eaults, one .uiet 0enour -ee%+ /e cannot blame indeed""but we may slee%) 6n /it, as 7ature, what affects our 2earts 6s nor thO 45actness of %eculiar Parts+ O0is not a ;i%, or 4ye, we Beauty call, But the Doint Eorce and full 3esult of all) N =ome to ?onceit alone their 0aste confine, And glittOring 0houghts struc- out at e*Ory ;ine+ PleasOd with a /or- where nothingOs Dust or fit+ 8ne glaring ?haos and wild 2ea% of /it+ Poets li-e Painters, thus, uns-illOd to trace 0he na-ed 7ature and the li*ing ,race, /ith ,old and >ewels co*er e*Ory Part, And hide with 8rnaments their /ant of Art) 0rue /it is 7ature to ad*antage drest, /hat oft was 0hought, but neOer so well 45%rest, =omething, whose 0ruth con*incOd at =ight we find, 0hat gi*es us bac- the 6mage of our 9ind( As =hades more sweetly recommend the ;ight, =o modest Plainness sets off s%rightly /it( Eor /or-s may ha*e more /it than does Oem good, As Bodies %erish through 45cess of Blood) 8thers for ;anguage all their ?are e5%ress, And *alue Boo-s, as /omen 9en, for 1ress( 0heir Praise is still""0he =tile is e5cellent( 0he =ense, they humbly ta-e u%on ?ontent) /ords are li-e ;ea*es+ and where they most abound, 9uch Eruit of =ense beneath is rarely found) Ealse 4lo.uence, li-e the Prismatic ,lass, 6ts gawdy ?olours s%reads on e*Ory %lace+ 0he Eace of 7ature was no more =ur*ey, All glares ali-e, without 1istinction gay( But true 45%ression, li-e thO unchanging =un, ?lears, and im%ro*es whateOer it shines u%on, 6t gilds all 8bDects, but it alters none) 45%ression is the 1ress of 0hought, and still A%%ears more decent as more suitable+ A *ile ?onceit in %om%ous /ords e5%rest, 6s li-e a ?lown in regal Pur%le drest+ Eor diffOrent =tyles with diffOrent =ubDects sort,

122

As se*eral ,arbs with ?ountry, 0own, and ?ourt) N But most by 7umbers' Dudge a PoetOs =ong, And smooth or rough, with them, is right or wrong+ 6n the bright 9use thoO thousand ?harms cons%ire, 2er Coice is all these tuneful Eools admire, /ho haunt Parnassus but to %lease their 4ar, 7ot mend their 9inds+ as some to ?hurch re%air, 7ot for the 1octrine, but the 9usic- there) 0hese 4.ual =yllables alone re.uire, 0hoO oft the 4ar the o%en Cowels tire, /hile 45%leti*es their feeble Aid do Doin, And ten low /ords oft cree% in one dull ;ine, /hile they ring round the same un*aryOd ?himes, /ith sure 3eturns of still e5%ected 3hymes) /here"eOer you find the cooling /estern BreeHe, 6n the ne5t ;ine, it whis%ers throO the 0rees+ 6f ?hrystal =treams with %leasing 9urmurs cree%, 0he 3eaderOs threatenOd (not in *ain$ with =lee%) 0hen, at the last, and only ?ou%let fraught /ith some unmeaning 0hing they call a 0hought, A needless Ale5andrine ends the =ong, 0hat li-e a wounded =na-e, drags its slow length along) ;ea*e such to tune their own dull 3himes, and -now /hatOs roundly smooth, or languishingly slow+ And %raise the 4asie Cigor of a ;ine, /here 1enhamOs =trength, and /allerOs =weetness Doin) 0rue 4ase in /riting comes from Art, not ?hance, As those mo*e easiest who ha*e learnOd to dance, O0is not enough no 2arshness gi*es 8ffence, 0he =ound must seem an 4ccho to the =ense) =oft is the =train when Qe%hyr gently blows, And the smooth =tream in smoother 7umbers flows+ But when loud =urges lash the sounding =hore, 0he hoarse, rough Cerse shouOd li-e the 0orrent roar) /hen ADa5 stri*es, some 3oc-sO *ast /eight to throw, 0he ;ine too labours, and the /ords mo*e slow+ 7ot so, when swift ?amilla scours the Plain, Elies oOer thOunbending ?orn, and s-ims along the 9ain) 2ear how 0imotheusO *aryOd ;ays sur%riHe, And bid Alternate Passions fall and riseJ N A*oid 45treams+ and shun the Eault of such, /ho still are %leasOd too little, or too much) At e*Ory 0rifle scorn to ta-e 8ffence,
"

i.e., rhyth3.

12,

0hat always shows ,reat Pride, or ;ittle =ense+ 0hose 2eads as =tomachs are not sure the best /hich nauseate all, and nothing can digest) Iet let not each gay 0urn thy 3a%ture mo*e, Eor Eools Admire, but 9en of =ense A%%ro*e+ As things seem large which we throO 9ists descry, 1ulness is e*er a%t to 9agnify) N ;4A37 then what 983A;= ?ritic-s ought to show, Eor Otis but half a >udgeOs 0as-, to Know) O0is not enough, 0aste, >udgment, ;earning, Doin+ 6n all you s%ea-, let 0ruth and ?andor shine( 0hat not alone what to your =ense is due, All may allow+ but see- your Eriendshi% too) Be silent always when you doubt your =ense+ And s%ea-, thoO sure, with seeming 1iffidence( =ome %ositi*e %ersisting Eo%s we -now, /ho, if once wrong, will needs be always so+ But you, with Pleasure own your 4rrors %ast, And ma-e each 1ay a ?ritic- on the last) O0is not enough your ?ounsel still be true, Blunt 0ruths more 9ischief than nice Ealsehood do+ 9en must be taught as if you taught them not+ And 0hings un-nown %ro%osOd as 0hings forgot( /ithout ,ood Breeding, 0ruth is disa%%ro*Od+ 0hat only ma-es =u%erior =ense belo*Od) Be 7iggards of Ad*ice on no Pretence+ Eor the worst A*arice is that of =ense( /ith mean ?om%lacence neOer betray your 0rust, 7or be so ?i*il as to %ro*e <nDust+ Eear not the Anger of the /ise to raise+ 0hose best can bear 3e%roof, who merit Praise) N *ollowed (y Pope+s &ersion of the history of criticism)

12-

=A9<4; >827=87 Erom Preface to =ha-es%eare&

7othing can %lease many, and %lease long, but Dust re%resentations of general nature) Particular manners can be -nown to few, and therefore few only can Dudge how nearly they are co%ied) 0he irregular combinations of fanciful in*ention may delight a"while, by that no*elty of which the common satiety of life sends us all in .uest+ but the %leasures of sudden wonder are soon e5hausted, and the mind can only re%ose on the stability of truth) =ha-es%eare is abo*e all writers, at least abo*e all modern writers, the %oet of nature+ the %oet that holds u% to his readers a faithful mirrour of manners and of life) 2is characters are not modified by the customs of %articular %laces, un%ractised by the rest of the world+ by the %eculiarities of studies or %rofessions, which can o%erate but u%on small numbers+ or by the accidents of transient fashions or tem%orary o%inions( they are the genuine %rogeny of common humanity, such as the world will always su%%ly, and obser*ation will always find) 2is %ersons act and s%ea- by the influence of those general %assions and %rinci%les by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is continued in motion) 6n the writings of other %oets a character is too often an indi*idual+ in those of =ha-es%eare it is commonly a s%ecies) 6t is from this wide e5tension of design that so much instruction is deri*ed) 6t is this which fills the %lays of =ha-es%eare with %ractical a5ioms and domestic- wisdom) 6t was said of 4uri%ides, that e*ery *erse was a %rece%t and it may be said of =ha-es%eare, that from his wor-s may be collected a system of ci*il and oeconomical %rudence) Iet his real %ower is not shown in the s%lendour of %articular %assages, but by the %rogress of his fable, and the tenour of his dialogue+ and he that tries to recommend him by select .uotations, will succeed li-e the %edant in 2ierocles, who, when he offered his house to sale, carried a bric- in his %oc-et as a s%ecimen) N ?haracters thus am%le and general were not easily discriminated and %reser*ed, yet %erha%s no %oet e*er -e%t his %ersonages more distinct from each other) 6 will not say with Po%e, that e*ery s%eech may be assigned to the %ro%er s%ea-er, because many s%eeches there are which ha*e nothing characteristical+ but, %erha%s, though some may be e.ually ada%ted to e*ery %erson, it will be difficult to find, any that can be %ro%erly transferred from the %resent %ossessor to another claimant) 0he choice is right, when there is reason for choice) 8ther dramatists can only gain attention by hy%erbolical or aggra*ated characters, by fabulous and une5am%led e5cellence or de%ra*ity, as the writers of barbarous romances in*igorated the reader by a giant and a dwarf+ and he that should form his e5%ectations of human affairs from the %lay, or from the tale, would be e.ually decei*ed) =ha-es%eare has no heroes+ his scenes are occu%ied only by men, who

12+

act and s%ea- as the reader thin-s that he should himself ha*e s%o-en or acted on the same occasion( 4*en where the agency is su%ernatural the dialogue is le*el with life) 8ther writers disguise the most natural %assions and most fre.uent incidents( so that he who contem%lates them in the boo- will not -now them in the world( =ha-es%eare a%%ro5imates the remote, and familiariHes the wonderful+ the e*ent which he re%resents will not ha%%en, but if it were %ossible, its effects would be %robably such as he has assigned+ and it may be said, that he has not only shewn human nature as it acts in real e5igences, but as it would be found in trials, to which it cannot be e5%osed) 0his therefore is the %raise of =ha-es%eare, that his drama is the mirrour of life+ that he who has maHed his imagination, in following the %hantoms which other writers raise u% before him, may here be cured of his delirious e5tasies, by reading human sentiments in human language+ by scenes from which a hermit may estimate the transactions of the world, and a confessor %redict the %rogress of the %assions) 2is adherence to general nature has e5%osed him to the censure of critic-s, who form their Dudgments u%on narrower %rinci%les) 1ennis and 3hymer thin- his 3omans not sufficiently 3oman+ and Coltaire censures his -ings as not com%letely royal) 1ennis is offended, that 9enenius, a senator of 3ome, should %lay the buffoon+ and Coltaire %erha%s thin-s decency *iolated when the 1anish <sur%er is re%resented as a drun-ard) But =ha-es%eare always ma-es nature %redominate o*er accident+ and if he %reser*es the essential character, is not *ery careful of distinctions su%erinduced and ad*entitious) 2is story re.uires 3omans or -ings, but he thin-s only on men) 2e -new that 3ome, li-e e*ery other city, had men of all dis%ositions+ and wanting a buffoon, he went into the senate" house for that which the senate"house would certainly ha*e afforded him) 2e was inclined to shew an usur%er and a murderer not only odious but des%icable, he therefore added drun-enness to his other .ualities, -nowing that -ings lo*e wine li-e other men, and that wine e5erts its natural %ower u%on -ings) 0hese are the %etty ca*ils of %etty minds+ a %oet o*erloo-s the casual distinction of country and condition, as a %ainter, satisfied with the figure, neglects the dra%ery) 0he censure which he has incurred by mi5ing comic- and tragicscenes, as it e5tends to all his wor-s, deser*es more consideration) ;et the fact be first stated, and then e5amined) =ha-es%eareOs %lays are not in the rigorous and critical sense either tragedies or comedies, but com%ositions of a distinct -ind+ e5hibiting the real state of sublunary nature, which %arta-es of good and e*il, Doy and sorrow, mingled with endless *ariety of %ro%ortion and innumerable modes of combination+ and e5%ressing the course of the world, in which the loss of one is the gain of another+ in which, at the same time, the re*eller is hasting to his wine, and the mourner burying his friend+ in which the malignity of one is sometimes defeated by the frolic- of another+ and many mischiefs and many benefits are done and hindered without design)

1,0

8ut of this chaos of mingled %ur%oses and casualties the ancient %oets, according to the laws which custom had %rescribed, selected some the crimes of men, and some their absurdities+ some the momentous *icissitudes of life, and some the lighter occurrences+ some the terrours of distress, and some the gayeties of %ros%erity) 0hus rose the two modes of imitation, -nown by the names of tragedy and comedy, com%ositions intended to %romote different ends by contrary means, and considered as so little allied, that 6 do not recollect among the ,ree-s or 3omans a single writer who attem%ted both) =ha-es%eare has united the %owers of e5citing laughter and sorrow not only in one mind, but in one com%osition) Almost all his %lays are di*ided between serious and ludicrous characters, and, in the successi*e e*olutions of the design, sometimes %roduce seriousness and sorrow, and sometimes le*ity and laughter) 0hat this is a %ractice contrary to the rules of criticism will be readily allowed+ but there is always an a%%eal o%en from criticism to nature) 0he end of writing is to instruct+ the end of %oetry is to instruct by %leasing) 0hat the mingled drama may con*ey all the instruction of tragedy or comedy cannot be denied, because it includes both in its alterations of e5hibition, and a%%roaches nearer than either to the a%%earance of life, by shewing how great machinations and slender designs may %romote or ob*iate one another, and the high and the low co"o%erate in the general system by una*oidable concatenation) 6t is obDected, that by this change of scenes the %assions are interru%ted in their %rogression, and that the %rinci%al e*ent, being not ad*anced by a due gradation of %re%aratory incidents, wants at last the %ower to mo*e, which constitutes the %erfection of dramatic- %oetry) 0his reasoning is so s%ecious, that it is recei*ed as true e*en by those who in daily e5%erience feel it to be false) 0he interchanges of mingled scenes seldom fail to %roduce the intended *icissitudes of %assion) Eiction cannot mo*e so much, but that the attention may be easily transferred+ and though it must be allowed that %leasing melancholy be sometimes interru%ted by unwelcome le*ity, yet let it be considered li-ewise, that melancholy is often not %leasing, and that the disturbance of one man may be the relief of another+ that different auditors ha*e different habitudes+ and that, u%on the whole, all %leasure consists in *ariety) N 6f there be, what 6 belie*e there is, in e*ery nation, a stile which ne*er becomes obsolete, a certain mode of %hraseology so consonant and congenial to the analogy and %rinci%les of its res%ecti*e language as to remain settled and unaltered+ this stile is %robably to be sought in the common intercourse of life, among those who s%ea- only to be understood, without ambition of elegance) 0he %olite are always catching modish inno*ations, and the learned de%art from established forms of s%eech, in ho%e of finding or ma-ing better+ those who wish for distinction forsa-e the *ulgar, when the *ulgar is right+ but there is a

1,1

con*ersation abo*e grossness and below refinement, where %ro%riety resides, and where this %oet seems to ha*e gathered his comicdialogue) 2e is therefore more agreeable to the ears of the %resent age than any other authour e.ually remote, and among his other e5cellencies deser*es to be studied as one of the original masters of our language) N =ha-es%eare with his e5cellencies has li-ewise faults, and faults sufficient to obscure and o*erwhelm any other merit) 6 shall shew them in the %ro%ortion in which they a%%ear to me, without en*ious malignity or su%erstitious *eneration) 7o .uestion can be more innocently discussed than a dead %oetOs %retensions to renown+ and little regard is due to that bigotry which sets candour higher than truth) 2is first defect is that to which may be im%uted most of the e*il in boo-s or in men) 2e sacrifices *irtue to con*enience, and is so much more careful to %lease than to instruct, that he seems to write without any moral %ur%ose) Erom his writings indeed a system of social duty may be selected, for he that thin-s reasonably must thin- morally+ but his %rece%ts and a5ioms dro% casually from him+ he ma-es no Dust distribution of good or e*il, nor is always careful to shew in the *irtuous a disa%%robation of the wic-ed+ he carries his %ersons indifferently through right and wrong, and at the close dismisses them without further care, and lea*es their e5am%les to o%erate by chance) 0his fault the barbarity of his age cannot e5tenuate+ for it is always a writerOs duty to ma-e the world better, and Dustice is a *irtue inde%endant on time or %lace) 0he %lots are often so loosely formed, that a *ery slight consideration may im%ro*e them, and so carelessly %ursued, that he seems not always fully to com%rehend his own design) 2e omits o%%ortunities of instructing or delighting which the train of his story seems to force u%on him, and a%%arently reDects those e5hibitions which would be more affecting, for the sa-e of those which are more easy) 6t may be obser*ed, that in many of his %lays the latter %art is e*idently neglected) /hen he found himself near the end of his wor-, and, in *iew of his reward, he shortened the labour, to snatch the %rofit) 2e therefore remits his efforts where he should most *igorously e5ert them, and his catastro%he is im%robably %roduced or im%erfectly re%resented) 2e had no regard to distinction of time or %lace, but gi*es to one age or nation, without scru%le, the customs, institutions, and o%inions of another, at the e5%ence not only of li-elihood, but of %ossibility) 0hese faults Po%e has endea*oured, with more Heal than Dudgment, to transfer to his imagined in inter%olators) /e need not wonder to find 2ector .uoting Aristotle, when we see the lo*es of 0heseus and 2i%%olyta combined with the ,othic mythology of fairies) =ha-es%eare, indeed, was not the only *iolator of chronology, for in the same age =idney, who wanted not the ad*antages of learning, has, in his RArcadiaR, confounded

1,2

the %astoral with the feudal times, the days of innocence, .uiet and security, with those of turbulence, *iolence and ad*enture) 6n his comic- scenes he is seldom *ery successful, when he engages his characters in reci%rocations of smartness and contest of sarcasm+ their Dests are commonly gross, and their %leasantry licentious+ neither his gentlemen nor his ladies ha*e much delicacy, nor are sufficiently distinguished from his clowns by any a%%earance of refined manners) /hether he re%resented the real con*ersation of his time is not easy to determine+ the reign of 4liHabeth is commonly su%%osed to ha*e been a time of stateliness, formality and reser*e, yet %erha%s the rela5ations of that se*erity were not *ery elegant) 0here must, howe*er, ha*e been always some modes of gayety %referable to others, and a writer ought to chuse the best) 6n tragedy his %erformance seems constantly to be worse, as his labour is more) 0he effusions of %assion which e5igence forces out are for the most %art stri-ing and energetic-+ but whene*er he solicits his in*ention, or strains his faculties, the offs%ring of his throes is tumour, meanness, tediousness, and obscurity) 6n narration he affects a dis%ro%ortionate %om% of diction and a wearisome train of circumlocution, and tells the incident im%erfectly in many words, which might ha*e been more %lainly deli*ered in few) 7arration in dramatic- %oetry is, naturally tedious, as it is unanimated and inacti*e, and obstructs the %rogress of the action+ it should therefore always be ra%id, and enli*ened by fre.uent interru%tion) =ha-es%eare found it an encumbrance, and instead of lightening it by bre*ity, endea*oured to recommend it by dignity and s%lendour) 2is declamations or set s%eeches are commonly cold and wea-, for his %ower was the %ower of nature+ when he endea*oured, li-e other tragic- writers, to catch o%%ortunities of am%lification, and instead of in.uiring what the occasion demanded, to show how much his stores of -nowledge could su%%ly, he seldom esca%es without the %ity or resentment of his reader) 6t is incident to him to be now and then entangled with an unwieldy sentiment, which he cannot well e5%ress, and will not reDect+ he struggles with it a while, and if it continues stubborn, com%rises it in words such as occur, and lea*es it to be disentangled and e*ol*ed by those who ha*e more leisure to bestow u%on it) N A .uibble is to =ha-es%eare, what luminous *a%ours are to the tra*eller+ he follows it at all ad*entures, it is sure to lead him out of his way, and sure to engulf him in the mire) 6t has some malignant %ower o*er his mind, and its fascinations are irresistible) /hate*er be the dignity or %rofundity of his dis.uisition, whether he be enlarging -nowledge or e5alting affection, whether he be amusing attention with incidents, or enchaining it in sus%ense, let but a .uibble s%ring u% before him, and he lea*es his wor- unfinished) A .uibble is the golden a%%le for which he will always turn aside from his career, or stoo% from his

1,"

ele*ation) A .uibble %oor and barren as it is, ga*e him such delight, that he was content to %urchase it, by the sacrifice of reason, %ro%riety and truth) A .uibble was to him the fatal ?leo%atra for which he lost the world, and was content to lose it) 6t will be thought strange, that, in enumerating the defects of this writer, 6 ha*e not yet mentioned his neglect of the unities+ his *iolation of those laws which ha*e been instituted and established by the Doint authority of %oets and of critic-s) N But, from the censure which this irregularity may bring u%on him, 6 shall, with due re*erence to that learning which 6 must o%%ose, ad*enture to try how 6 can defend him) 2is histories, being neither tragedies nor comedies, are not subDect to any of their laws+ nothing more is necessary to all the %raise which they e5%ect, than that the changes of action be so %re%ared as to be understood, that the incidents be *arious and affecting, and the characters consistent, natural and distinct) 7o other unity is intended, and therefore none is to be sought) 6n his other wor-s he has well enough %reser*ed the unity of action) 2e has not, indeed, an intrigue regularly %er%le5ed and regularly unra*elled+ he does not endea*our to hide his design only to disco*er it, for this is seldom the order of real e*ents, and =ha-es%eare is the %oet of nature( But his %lan has commonly what Aristotle re.uires, a beginning, a middle, and an end+ one e*ent is concatenated with another, and the conclusion follows by easy conse.uence) 0here are %erha%s some incidents that might be s%ared, as in other %oets there is much tal- that only fills u% time u%on the stage+ but the general system ma-es gradual ad*ances, and the end of the %lay is the end of e5%ectation) 0o the unities of time and %lace he has shewn no regard, and %erha%s a nearer *iew of the %rinci%les on which they stand will diminish their *alue, and withdraw from them the *eneration which, from the time of ?orneille, they ha*e *ery generally recei*ed by disco*ering that they ha*e gi*en more trouble to the %oet, than %leasure to the auditor) 0he necessity of obser*ing the unities of time and %lace arises from the su%%osed necessity of ma-ing the drama credible) 0he critic-s hold it im%ossible, that an action of months or years can be %ossibly belie*ed to %ass in three hours+ or that the s%ectator can su%%ose himself to sit in the theatre, while ambassadors go and return between distant -ings, while armies are le*ied and towns besieged, while an e5ile wanders and returns, or till he whom they saw courting his mistress, shall lament the untimely fall of his son) 0he mind re*olts from e*ident falsehood, and fiction loses its force when it de%arts from the resemblance of reality) N =uch is the trium%hant language with which a critic- e5ults o*er the misery of an irregular %oet, and e5ults commonly without resistance or re%ly) 6t is time therefore to tell him, by the authority of =ha-es%eare, that he assumes, as an un.uestionable %rinci%le, a %osition, which, while

1,/

his breath is forming it into words, his understanding %ronounces to be false) 6t is false, that any re%resentation is mista-en for reality+ that any dramatic- fable in its materiality was e*er credible, or, for a single moment, was e*er credited) 0he obDection arising from the im%ossibility of %assing the first hour at Ale5andria, and the ne5t at 3ome, su%%oses, that when the %lay o%ens the s%ectator really imagines himself at Ale5andria, and belie*es that his wal- to the theatre has been a *oyage to 4gy%t, and that he li*es in the days of Antony and ?leo%atra) =urely he that imagines this, may imagine more) 2e that can ta-e the stage at one time for the %alace of the Ptolemies, may ta-e it in half an hour for the %romontory of Actium) 1elusion, if delusion be admitted, has no certain limitation+ if the s%ectator can be once %ersuaded, that his old ac.uaintance are Ale5ander and ?aesar, that a room illuminated with candles is the %lain of Pharsalia, or the ban- of ,ranicus, he is in a state of ele*ation abo*e the reach of reason, or of truth, and from the heights of em%yrean %oetry, may des%ise the circumscri%tions of terrestrial nature) 0here is no reason why a mind thus wandering in e5tasy should count the cloc-, or why an hour should not be a century in that calenture of the brains that can ma-e the stage a field) 0he truth is, that the s%ectators are always in their senses, and -now, from the first act to the last, that the stage is only a stage, and that the %layers are only %layers) 0hey come to hear a certain number of lines recited with Dust gesture and elegant modulation) 0he lines relate to some action, and an action must be in some %lace+ but the different actions that com%leat a story may be in %laces *ery remote from each other+ and where is the absurdity of allowing that s%ace to re%resent first Athens, and then =icily, which was always -nown to be neither =icily nor Athens, but a modern theatreF By su%%osition, as %lace is introduced, time may be e5tended+ the time re.uired by the fable ela%ses for the most %art between the acts+ for, of so much of the action as is re%resented, the real and %oetical duration is the same) N 0he drama e5hibits successi*e imitations of successi*e actions, and why may not the second imitation re%resent an action that ha%%ened years after the first+ if it be so connected with it, that nothing but time can be su%%osed to inter*eneF 0ime is, of all modes of e5istence, most obse.uious to the imagination+ a la%se of years is as easily concei*ed as a %assage of hours) 6n contem%lation we easily contract the time of real actions, and therefore willingly %ermit it to be contracted when we only see their imitation) 6t will be as-ed, how the drama mo*es, if it is not credited) 6t is credited with all the credit due to a drama) 6t is credited, whene*er it mo*es, as a Dust %icture of a real original+ as re%resenting to the auditor what he would himself feel, if he were to do or suffer what is there feigned to be suffered or to be done) 0he reflection that stri-es the heart is not, that the e*ils before us are real e*ils, but that they are e*ils to which we oursel*es may be e5%osed) 6f there be any fallacy, it is not that

1,.

we fancy the %layers, but that we fancy oursel*es unha%%y for a moment+ but we rather lament the %ossibility than su%%ose the %resence of misery, as a mother wee%s o*er her babe, when she remembers that death may ta-e it from her) 0he delight of tragedy %roceeds from our consciousness of fiction+ if we thought murders and treasons real, they would %lease no more) 6mitations %roduce %ain or %leasure, not because they are mista-en for realities, but because they bring realities to mind) /hen the imagination is recreated by a %ainted landsca%e, the trees are not su%%osed ca%able to gi*e us shade, or the fountains coolness+ but we consider, how we should be %leased with such fountains %laying beside us, and such woods wa*ing o*er us) /e are agitated in reading the history of R2enry the EifthR, yet no man ta-es his boo- for the field of Agencourt) A dramatic- e5hibition is a boo- recited with concomitants that encrease or diminish its effect) Eamiliar comedy is often more %owerful on the theatre, than in the %age+ im%erial tragedy is always less) 0he humour of Petruchio may be heightened by grimace+ but what *oice or what gesture can ho%e to add dignity or force to the solilo.uy of ?ato) N

1,2

2473I E64;167, The ,istory of the Ad&entures of -oseph Andrews and ,is *riend .r A(raham Adams
Erom the AuthorOs Preface As it is %ossible the mere 4nglish reader may ha*e a different idea of romance from the author of these little *olumes, and may conse.uently e5%ect a -ind of entertainment not to be found, nor which was e*en intended, in the following %ages, it may not be im%ro%er to %remise a few words concerning this -ind of writing, which 6 do not remember to ha*e seen hitherto attem%ted in our language) 0he 4P6?, as well as the 13A9A, is di*ided into tragedy and comedy) 28943, who was the father of this s%ecies of %oetry, ga*e us a %attern of both these, though that of the latter -ind is entirely lost+ which Aristotle tells us, bore the same relation to comedy which his 6liad bears to tragedy) And %erha%s, that we ha*e no more instances of it among the writers of anti.uity, is owing to the loss of this great %attern, which, had it sur*i*ed, would ha*e found its imitators e.ually with the other %oems of this great original) And farther, as this %oetry may be tragic or comic, 6 will not scru%le to say it may be li-ewise either in *erse or %rose( for though it wants one %articular, which the critic enumerates in the constituent %arts of an e%ic %oem, namely metre+ yet, when any -ind of writing contains all its other %arts, such as fable, action, characters, sentiments, and diction, and is deficient in metre only, it seems, 6 thin-, reasonable to refer it to the e%ic+ at least, as no critic hath thought %ro%er to range it under any other head, or to assign it a %articular name to itself) N 7ow, a comic romance is a comic e%ic %oem in %rose+ differing from comedy, as the serious e%ic from tragedy( its action being more e5tended and com%rehensi*e+ containing a much larger circle of incidents, and introducing a greater *ariety of characters) 6t differs from the serious romance in its fable and action, in this+ that as in the one these are gra*e and solemn, so in the other they are light and ridiculous( it differs in its characters by introducing %ersons of inferior ran-, and conse.uently, of inferior manners, whereas the gra*e romance sets the highest before us( lastly, in its sentiments and diction+ by %reser*ing the ludicrous instead of the sublime) 6n the diction, 6 thin-, burles.ue itself may be sometimes admitted+ of which many instances will occur in this wor-, as in the descri%tion of the battles, and some other %laces, not necessary to be %ointed out to the classical reader, for whose entertainment those %arodies or burles.ue imitations are chiefly calculated) But though we ha*e sometimes admitted this in our diction, we ha*e carefully e5cluded it from our sentiments and characters+ for there it is ne*er %ro%erly introduced, unless in writings of the burles.ue -ind,

1,,

which this is not intended to be) 6ndeed, no two s%ecies of writing can differ more widely than the comic and the burles.ue+ for as the latter is e*er the e5hibition of what is monstrous and unnatural, and where our delight, if we e5amine it, arises from the sur%riHing absurdity, as in a%%ro%riating the manners of the highest to the lowest, or e con&erso+ so in the former we should e*er confine oursel*es strictly to nature, from the Dust imitation of which will flow all the %leasure we can this way con*ey to a sensible reader) And %erha%s there is one reason why a comic writer should of all others be the least e5cused for de*iating from nature, since it may not be always so easy for a serious %oet to meet with the great and the admirable+ but life e*erywhere furnishes an accurate obser*er with the ridiculous) 6 ha*e hinted this little concerning burles.ue, because 6 ha*e often heard that name gi*en to %erformances which ha*e been truly of the comic -ind, from the authorOs ha*ing sometimes admitted it in his diction only+ which, as it is the dress of %oetry, doth, li-e the dress of men, establish characters (the one of the whole %oem, and the other of the whole man$, in *ulgar o%inion, beyond any of their greater e5cellences( but surely, a certain drollery in stile, where characters and sentiments are %erfectly natural, no more constitutes the burles.ue, than an em%ty %om% and dignity of words, where e*erything else is mean and low, can entitle any %erformance to the a%%ellation of the true sublime) N But to illustrate all this by another science, in which, %erha%s, we shall see the distinction more clearly and %lainly, let us e5amine the wor-s of a comic history %ainter, with those %erformances which the 6talians call ?aricatura, where we shall find the true e5cellence of the former to consist in the e5actest co%ying of nature+ insomuch that a Dudicious eye instantly reDects anything SoutreS, any liberty which the %ainter hath ta-en with the features of that Salma materS+ whereas in the ?aricatura we allow all licence""its aim is to e5hibit monsters, not men+ and all distortions and e5aggerations whate*er are within its %ro%er %ro*ince) 7ow, what ?aricatura is in %ainting, Burles.ue is in writing+ and in the same manner the comic writer and %ainter correlate to each other) And here 6 shall obser*e, that, as in the former the %ainter seems to ha*e the ad*antage+ so it is in the latter infinitely on the side of the writer+ for the 9onstrous is much easier to %aint than describe, and the 3idiculous to describe than %aint) And though %erha%s this latter s%ecies doth not in either science so strongly affect and agitate the muscles as the other+ yet it will be owned, 6 belie*e, that a more rational and useful %leasure arises to us from it) 2e who should call the ingenious 2ogarth a burles.ue %ainter, would, in my o%inion, do him *ery little honour+ for sure it is much easier, much less the subDect of admiration, to %aint a man with a nose, or any other feature, of a %re%osterous siHe, or to e5%ose him in some absurd or monstrous attitude, than to e5%ress the affections of men on can*as) 6t

1,-

hath been thought a *ast commendation of a %ainter to say his figures seem to breathe+ but surely it is a much greater and nobler a%%lause, that they a%%ear to thin-) But to return) 0he 3idiculous only, as 6 ha*e before said, falls within my %ro*ince in the %resent wor-) 7or will some e5%lanation of this word be thought im%ertinent by the reader, if he considers how wonderfully it hath been mista-en, e*en by writers who ha*e %rofessed it( for to what but such a mista-e can we attribute the many attem%ts to ridicule the blac-est *illanies, and, what is yet worse, the most dreadful calamitiesF /hat could e5ceed the absurdity of an author, who should write the comedy of 7ero, with the merry incident of ri%%ing u% his motherOs bellyF or what would gi*e a greater shoc- to humanity than an attem%t to e5%ose the miseries of %o*erty and distress to ridiculeF And yet the reader will not want much learning to suggest such instances to himself) Besides, it may seem remar-able, that Aristotle, who is so fond and free of definitions, hath not thought %ro%er to define the 3idiculous) 6ndeed, where he tells us it is %ro%er to comedy, he hath remar-ed that *illany is not its obDect( but he hath not, as 6 remember, %ositi*ely asserted what is) 7or doth the Abbe Bellegarde, who hath written a treatise on this subDect, though he shows us many s%ecies of it, once trace it to its fountain) 0he only source of the true 3idiculous (as it a%%ears to me$ is affectation) But though it arises from one s%ring only, when we consider the infinite streams into which this one branches, we shall %resently cease to admire at the co%ious field it affords to an obser*er) 7ow, affectation %roceeds from one of these two causes, *anity or hy%ocrisy( for as *anity %uts us on affecting false characters, in order to %urchase a%%lause+ so hy%ocrisy sets us on an endea*our to a*oid censure, by concealing our *ices under an a%%earance of their o%%osite *irtues) And though these two causes are often confounded (for there is some difficulty in distinguishing them$, yet, as they %roceed from *ery different moti*es, so they are as clearly distinct in their o%erations( for indeed, the affectation which arises from *anity is nearer to truth than the other, as it hath not that *iolent re%ugnancy of nature to struggle with, which that of the hy%ocrite hath) 6t may be li-ewise noted, that affectation doth not im%ly an absolute negation of those .ualities which are affected+ and, therefore, though, when it %roceeds from hy%ocrisy, it be nearly allied to deceit+ yet when it comes from *anity only, it %arta-es of the nature of ostentation( for instance, the affectation of liberality in a *ain man differs *isibly from the same affectation in the a*aricious+ for though the *ain man is not what he would a%%ear, or hath not the *irtue he affects, to the degree he would be thought to ha*e it+ yet it sits less aw-wardly on him than on the a*aricious man, who is the *ery re*erse of what he would seem to be) Erom the disco*ery of this affectation arises the 3idiculous, which always stri-es the reader with sur%riHe and %leasure+ and that in a higher and stronger degree when the affectation arises from hy%ocrisy, than

1,+

when from *anity+ for to disco*er any one to be the e5act re*erse of what he affects, is more sur%riHing, and conse.uently more ridiculous, than to find him a little deficient in the .uality he desires the re%utation of) 6 might obser*e that our Ben >onson, who of all men understood the 3idiculous the best, hath chiefly used the hy%ocritical affectation) 7ow, from affectation only, the misfortunes and calamities of life, or the im%erfections of nature, may become the obDects of ridicule) =urely he hath a *ery ill"framed mind who can loo- on ugliness, infirmity, or %o*erty, as ridiculous in themsel*es( nor do 6 belie*e any man li*ing, who meets a dirty fellow riding through the streets in a cart, is strucwith an idea of the 3idiculous from it+ but if he should see the same figure descend from his coach and si5, or bolt from his chair with his hat under his arm, he would then begin to laugh, and with Dustice) 6n the same manner, were we to enter a %oor house and behold a wretched family shi*ering with cold and languishing with hunger, it would not incline us to laughter (at least we must ha*e *ery diabolical natures if it would$+ but should we disco*er there a grate, instead of coals, adorned with flowers, em%ty %late or china dishes on the sideboard, or any other affectation of riches and finery, either on their %ersons or in their furniture, we might then indeed be e5cused for ridiculing so fantastical an a%%earance) 9uch less are natural im%erfections the obDect of derision+ but when ugliness aims at the a%%lause of beauty, or lameness endea*ours to dis%lay agility, it is then that these unfortunate circumstances, which at first mo*ed our com%assion, tend only to raise our mirth) 0he %oet carries this *ery far(""
7one are for being what they are in fault, But for not being what they would be thought)

/here if the metre would suffer the word 3idiculous to close the first line, the thought would be rather more %ro%er) ,reat *ices are the %ro%er obDects of our detestation, smaller faults, of our %ity+ but affectation a%%ears to me the only true source of the 3idiculous) N

1-0

024 389A706?=

=A9<4; 0AI;83 ?8;4361,4 Erom Biographia Literaria (1B1#$

0he %rimary imagination 6 hold to be the li*ing %ower and %rime agent of all human %erce%tion, and as a re%etition in the finite of the eternal act of creation of the infinite 6 A9) 0he secondary 6 consider as an echo of the former, coe5isting with the conscious will, yet still identical with the %rimary in the %ind of its agency, and differing only in degree, and in the mode of its o%eration) 6t dissol*es, diffuses, dissi%ates, in order to re" create+ or where this %rocess is rendered im%ossible, yet still, at all e*ents, it struggles to idealiHe and to unify) 6t is essentially *ital, e*en as all obDects (as obDects$ are essentially fi5ed and dead) Eancy, on the contrary, has no other counters to %lay with, but fi5ities and definites) 0he Eancy is indeed no other than a mode of 9emory emanci%ated from the order of time and s%ace+ while it is blended with, and modified by that em%irical %henomenon of the will, which we e5%ress by the word ?286?4) But e.ually with the ordinary memory the Eancy must recei*e all its materials ready made from the law of association)
N

0he %oet, described in ideal %erfection, brings the whole soul of man into acti*ity, with the subordination of its faculties to each other according to their relati*e worth and dignity) 2e diffuses a tone and s%irit of unity, that blends, and (as it were$ fuses, each into each, by that synthetic and magical %ower, to which 6 would e5clusi*ely a%%ro%riate the name of 6magination)
N

0his %ower)))re*eals itself in the balance or reconcilement of o%%osite or discordant .ualities( of sameness, with difference+ of the general with the concrete+ the idea with the image+ the indi*idual with the re%resentati*e+ the sense of no*elty and freshness with old and familiar obDects+ a more than usual state of emotion with more than usual order+ Dudgment e*er awa-e and steady self"%ossession with enthusiasm and feeling %rofound or *ehement+ and while it blends and harmoniHes the natural and the artificial, still subordinates art to nature+ the manner to the matter+ and our admiration of the %oet to our sym%athy with the %oetry)
N

6n this idea originated the %lan of the O;yrical BalladsO+ in which it was agreed, that my endea*ours should be directed to %ersons and characters su%ernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to %rocure for these shadows of imagination that willing sus%ension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes %oetic faith) 9r) /ordsworth on the other hand was to %ro%ose to himself as his obDect, to gi*e the

1-1

charm of no*elty to things of e*ery day, and to e5cite a feeling analogous to the su%ernatural, by awa-ening the mindOs attention from the lethargy of custom, and directing it to the lo*eliness and the wonders of the world before us+ an ine5haustible treasure, but for which in conse.uence of the film of familiarity and selfish solicitude we ha*e eyes, yet see not, ears that hear not, and hearts that neither feel nor understand)
N

/hile L=ha-es%eareM darts himself forth, and %asses into all the forms of human character and %assion, the one Proteus of the fire and the flood+ L9iltonM attracts all forms and things to himself, into the unity of his own ideal) All things and modes of action sha%e themsel*es anew in the being of 9ilton+ while =ha-es%eare becomes all things, yet e*er remaining himself)
N

8ur myriad/minded =ha-es%eare)

/6;;6A9 /831=/8302 Erom the Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1B00$

024 E63=0 *olume of these Poems has already been submitted to general %erusal) 6t was %ublished, as an e5%eriment, which, 6 ho%ed, might be of some use to ascertain, how far, by fitting to metrical arrangement a selection of the real language of men in a state of *i*id sensation, that sort of %leasure and that .uantity of %leasure may be im%arted, which a Poet may rationally endea*our to im%art)
N

0he %rinci%al obDect, then, %ro%osed in these Poems was to choose incidents and situations from common life, and to relate or describe them, throughout, as far as was %ossible in a selection of language really used by men, and, at the same time, to throw o*er them a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary things should be %resented to the mind in an unusual as%ect+ and, further, and abo*e all, to ma-e these incidents and situations interesting by tracing in them, truly though not ostentatiously, the %rimary laws of our nature( chiefly, as far as regards the manner in which we associate ideas in a state of e5citement) 2umble and rustic life was generally chosen, because, in that condition, the essential %assions of the heart find a better soil in which they can attain their maturity, are less under restraint, and s%eaa %lainer and more em%hatic language+ because in that condition of life our elementary feelings coe5ist in a state of greater sim%licity, and, conse.uently, may be more accurately contem%lated, and more forcibly communicated+ because the manners of rural life germinate from those elementary feelings, and, from the necessary character of rural occu%ations, are more easily com%rehended, and are more durable+ and, lastly, because in that condition the %assions of men are incor%orated

1-2

with the beautiful and %ermanent forms of nature) 0he language, too, of these men has been ado%ted (%urified indeed from what a%%ear to be its real defects, from all lasting and rational causes of disli-e or disgust$ because such men hourly communicate with the best obDects from which the best %art of language is originally deri*ed+ and because, from their ran- in society and the sameness and narrow circle of their intercourse, being less under the influence of social *anity, they con*ey their feelings and notions in sim%le and unelaborated e5%ressions) Accordingly, such a language, arising out of re%eated e5%erience and regular feelings, is a more %ermanent, and a far more %hiloso%hical language, than that which is fre.uently substituted for it by Poets, who thin- that they are conferring honour u%on themsel*es and their art, in %ro%ortion as they se%arate themsel*es from the sym%athies of men, and indulge in arbitrary and ca%ricious habits of e5%ression, in order to furnish food for fic-le tastes, and fic-le a%%etites, of their own creation)
N

6t may be safely affirmed that there neither is, nor can be, any essential difference between the language of %rose and metrical com%osition)))) 0hey both s%ea- by and to the same organs+ the bodies in which both of them are clothed may be said to be of the same substance, their affections are -indred, and almost identical, not necessarily differing e*en in degree+ Poetry sheds no tears such as Angels wee%,& but natural and human tears+ she can boast of no celestial ichor that distinguishes her *ital Duices from those of %rose+ the same human blood circulates through the *eins of them both)
N

N he Lthe %oetM will feel that there is no necessity to tric- out or to ele*ate nature( and, the more industriously he a%%lies this %rinci%le, the dee%er will be his faith that no words, which his fancy or imagination can suggest, will be to be com%ared with those which are the emanations of reality and truth)

P43?I B6==24 =24;;4I Erom The Defence of Poetry (1B!1, 1BT0$

0he most unfailing herald, com%anion, and follower of the awa-ening of a great %eo%le to wor- a beneficial change in o%inion or institution, is %oetry) At such %eriods there is an accumulation of the %ower of communicating and recei*ing intense and im%assioned conce%tions res%ecting man and nature) 0he %erson in whom this %ower resides, may often, as far as regards many %ortions of their nature, ha*e little a%%arent corres%ondence with that s%irit of good of which they are the ministers) But e*en whilst they deny and abDure, they are yet com%elled to ser*e, that %ower which is seated on the throne of their own soul) 6t is im%ossible to read the com%ositions of the most celebrated writers of the %resent day without being startled with the electric life which burns

1-"

within their words) 0hey measure the circumference and sound the de%ths of human nature with a com%rehensi*e and all"%enetrating s%irit, and they are themsel*es %erha%s the most sincerely astonished at its manifestations+ for it is less their s%irit than the s%irit of the age) Poets are the hiero%hants of an una%%rehended ins%iration+ the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts u%on the %resent+ the words which e5%ress what they understand not+ the trum%ets which sing to battle, and feel not what they ins%ire+ the influence which is mo*ed not, but mo*es) Poets are the unac-nowledged legislators of the world)

1-/

9A0024/ A378;1 Erom The *unction of Criticism at the Present Time

0he critical %ower is of lower ran- than the creati*e) 0rue+ but in assenting to this %ro%osition, one or two things are to be -e%t in mind) 6t is undeniable that the e5ercise of a creati*e %ower, that a free creati*e acti*ity, is the highest function of man+ it is %ro*ed to be so by manOs finding in it his true ha%%iness) But it is undeniable, also, that men may ha*e the sense of e5ercising this free creati*e acti*ity in other ways than in %roducing great wor-s of literature or art+ if it were not so, all but a *ery few men would be shut out from the true ha%%iness of all men) 0hey may ha*e it in well"doing, they may ha*e it in learning, they may ha*e it e*en in criticiHing) 0his is one thing to be -e%t in mind) Another is, that the e5ercise of the creati*e %ower in the %roduction of great wor-s of literature or art, howe*er high this e5ercise of it may ran-, is not at all e%ochs and under all conditions %ossible+ and that therefore labor may be *ainly s%ent in attem%ting it, which might with more fruit be used in %re%aring for it, in rendering it %ossible) 0his creati*e %ower wor-s with elements, with materials+ what if it has not those materials, those elements, ready for its useF 6n that case it must surely wait till they are ready) 7ow, in literature, "" 6 will limit myself to literature, for it is about literature that the .uestion arises,"" the elements with which the creati*e %ower wor-s are ideas+ the best ideas on e*ery matter which literature touches, current at the time) At any rate we may lay it down as certain that in modern literature no manifestation of the creati*e %ower not wor-ing with these can be *ery im%ortant or fruitful) And 6 say current at the time, not merely accessible at the time+ for creati*e literary genius does not %rinci%ally show itself in disco*ering new ideas( that is rather the business of the %hiloso%her) 0he grand wor- of literary genius is a wor- of synthesis and e5%osition, not of analysis and disco*ery+ its gift lies in the faculty of being ha%%ily ins%ired by a certain intellectual and s%iritual atmos%here, by a certain order of ideas, when it finds itself in them+ of dealing di*inely with these ideas, %resenting them in the most effecti*e and attracti*e combinations, ""ma-ing beautiful wor-s with them, in short) But it must ha*e the atmos%here, it must find itself amidst the order of ideas, in order to wor- freely+ and these it is not so easy to command) 0his is why great creati*e e%ochs in literature are so rare, this is why there is so much that is unsatisfactory in the %roductions of many men of real genius+ because, for the creation of a master"wor- of literature two %owers must concur, the %ower of the man and the %ower of the moment, and the man is not enough without the moment+ the creati*e %ower has, for its ha%%y e5ercise, a%%ointed elements, and those elements are not in its own control) 7ay, they are more within the control of the critical %ower) 6t is the business of the critical %ower, as 6 said in the words already .uoted, Rin all branches of -nowledge, theology, %hiloso%hy, history, art, science, to see the obDect as in itself it really is)R 0hus it tends, at last, to ma-e an

1-.

intellectual situation of which the creati*e %ower can %rofitably a*ail itself) 6t tends to establish an order of ideas, if not absolutely true, yet true by com%arison with that which it dis%laces+ to ma-e the best ideas %re*ail) Presently these new ideas reach society, the touch of truth is the touch of life, and there is a stir and growth e*erywhere+ out of this stir and growth come the creati*e e%ochs of literature) N At first sight it seems strange that out of the immense stir of the Erench 3e*olution and its age should not ha*e come a cro% of wor-s of genius e.ual to that which came out of the stir of the great %roducti*e time of ,reece, or out of that of the 3enascence, with its %owerful e%isode the 3eformation) But the truth is that the stir of the Erench 3e*olution too- a character which essentially distinguished it from such mo*ements as these) 0hese were, in the main, disinterestedly intellectual and s%iritual mo*ements+ mo*ements in which the human s%irit loo-ed for its satisfaction in itself and in the increased %lay of its own acti*ity) 0he Erench 3e*olution too- a %olitical, %ractical character) 0he mo*ement, which went on in Erance under the old rUgime, from 1#00 to 1#B , was far more really a-in than that of the 3e*olution itself to the mo*ement of the 3enascence+ the Erance of Coltaire and 3ousseau told far more %owerfully u%on the mind of 4uro%e than the Erance of the 3e*olution) ,oethe re%roached this last e5%ressly with ha*ing Rthrown .uiet culture bac-)R 7ay, and the true -ey to how much in our Byron, e*en in our /ordsworth, is thisJ "" that they had their source in a great mo*ement of feeling, not in a great mo*ement of mind) 0he Erench 3e*olution, howe*er, ""that obDect of so much blind lo*e and so much blind hatred,"" found undoubtedly its moti*e"%ower in the intelligence of men, and not in their %ractical sense+ this is what distinguishes it from the 4nglish 3e*olution of ?harles the EirstOs time) 0his is what ma-es it a more s%iritual e*ent than our 3e*olution, an e*ent of much more %owerful and world"wide interest, though %ractically less successful+ it a%%eals to an order of ideas which are uni*ersal, certain, %ermanent) 1#B as-ed of a thing, 6s it rationalF 1AT! as-ed of a thing, 6s it legalF or, when it went furthest, 6s it according to conscienceF 0his is the 4nglish fashion, a fashion to be treated, within its own s%here, with the highest res%ect+ for its success, within its own s%here, has been %rodigious) But what is law in one %lace is not law in another+ what is law here to"day is not law e*en here to"morrow+ and as for conscience, what is binding on one manOs conscience is not binding on anotherOs) N Eor the 4nglishman in general is li-e my friend the 9ember of Parliament, and belie*es, %oint"blan-, that for a thing to be an anomaly is absolutely no obDection to it whate*er) 2e is li-e the ;ord Auc-land of Bur-eOs day, who, in a memorandum on the Erench 3e*olution, tal-s of Rcertain miscreants, assuming the name of %hiloso%hers, who ha*e %resumed themsel*es ca%able of establishing a new system of society)R 0he 4nglishman has been called a %olitical animal, and he *alues what is %olitical and %ractical so much that ideas

1-2

easily become obDects of disli-e in his eyes, and thin-ers Rmiscreants,R because ideas and thin-ers ha*e rashly meddled with %olitics and %ractice) 0his would be all *ery well if the disli-e and neglect confined themsel*es to ideas trans%orted out of their own s%here, and meddling rashly with %ractice+ but they are ine*itably e5tended to ideas as such, and to the whole life of intelligence+ %ractice is e*erything, a free %lay of the mind is nothing) 0he notion of the free %lay of the mind u%on all subDects being a %leasure in itself, being an obDect of desire, being an essential %ro*ider of elements without which a nationOs s%irit, whate*er com%ensations it may ha*e for them, must, in the long run, die of inanition, hardly enters into an 4nglishmanOs thoughts) 6t is noticeable that the word curiosity, which in other languages is used in a good sense, to mean, as a high and fine .uality of manOs nature, Dust this disinterested lo*e of a free %lay of the mind on all subDects, for its own sa-e, ""it is noticeable, 6 say, that this word has in our language no sense of the -ind, no sense but a rather bad and dis%araging one) But criticism, real criticism, is essentially the e5ercise of this *ery .uality) 6t obeys an instinct %rom%ting it to try to -now the best that is -nown and thought in the world, irres%ecti*ely of %ractice, %olitics, and e*erything of the -ind+ and to *alue -nowledge and thought as they a%%roach this best, without the intrusion of any other considerations whate*er) 0his is an instinct for which there is, 6 thin-, little original sym%athy in the %ractical 4nglish nature, and what there was of it has undergone a long benumbing %eriod of blight and su%%ression in the e%och of concentration which followed the Erench 3e*olution) But e%ochs of concentration cannot well endure fore*er+ e%ochs of e5%ansion, in the due course of things, follow them) =uch an e%och of e5%ansion seems to be o%ening in this country) 6n the first %lace all danger of a hostile forcible %ressure of foreign ideas u%on our %ractice has long disa%%eared+ li-e the tra*eller in the fable, therefore, we begin to wear our cloa- a little more loosely) 0hen, with a long %eace, the ideas of 4uro%e steal gradually and amicably in, and mingle, though in infinitesimally small .uantities at a time, with our own notions) 0hen, too, in s%ite of all that is said about the absorbing and brutaliHing influence of our %assionate material %rogress, it seems to me indis%utable that this %rogress is li-ely, though not certain, to lead in the end to an a%%arition of intellectual life+ and that man, after he has made himself %erfectly comfortable and has now to determine what to do with himself ne5t, may begin to remember that he has a mind, and that the mind may be made the source of great %leasure) 6 grant it is mainly the %ri*ilege of faith, at %resent, to discern this end to our railways, our business, and our fortune"ma-ing+ but we shall see if, here as elsewhere, faith is not in the end the true %ro%het) 8ur ease, our tra*elling, and our unbounded liberty to hold Dust as hard and securely as we %lease to the %ractice to which our notions ha*e gi*en birth, all tend to beget an inclination to deal a little more freely with these notions themsel*es, to can*ass them a little, to %enetrate a little into their real nature)

1-,

Elutterings of curiosity, in the foreign sense of the word, a%%ear amongst us, and it is in these that criticism must loo- to find its account) ?riticism first+ a time of true creati*e acti*ity, %erha%s, ""which, as 6 ha*e said, must ine*itably be %receded amongst us by a time of criticism,"" hereafter, when criticism has done its wor-) 6t is of the last im%ortance that 4nglish criticism should clearly discern what rule for its course, in order to a*ail itself of the field now o%ening to it, and to %roduce fruit for the future, it ought to ta-e) 0he rule may be summed u% in one word, ""disinterestedness) And how is criticism to show disinterestednessF By -ee%ing aloof from what is called Rthe %ractical *iew of thingsR+ by resolutely following the law of its own nature, which is to be a free %lay of the mind on all subDects which it touches) By steadily refusing to lend itself to any of those ulterior, %olitical, %ractical considerations about ideas, which %lenty of %eo%le will be sure to attach to them, which %erha%s ought often to be attached to them, which in this country at any rate are certain to be attached to them .uite sufficiently, but which criticism has really nothing to do with) 6ts business is, as 6 ha*e said, sim%ly to -now the best that is -nown and thought in the world, and by in its turn ma-ing this -nown, to create a current of true and fresh ideas) 6ts business is to do this with infle5ible honesty, with due ability+ but its business is to do no more, and to lea*e alone all .uestions of %ractical conse.uences and a%%lications, .uestions which will ne*er fail to ha*e due %rominence gi*en to them) 4lse criticism, besides being really false to its own nature, merely continues in the old rut which it has hitherto followed in this country, and will certainly miss the chance now gi*en to it) N But let criticism lea*e church"rates and the franchise alone, and in the most candid s%irit, without a single lur-ing thought of %ractical inno*ation, confront with our dithyramb this %aragra%h on which 6 stumbled in a news%a%er immediately after reading 9r) 3oebuc-(""
A shoc-ing child murder has Dust been committed at 7ottingham) A girl named /ragg left the wor-house there on =aturday morning with her young illegitimate child) 0he child was soon afterwards found dead on 9a%%erly 2ills, ha*ing been strangled) /ragg is in custody)

7othing but that+ but, in Du5ta%osition with the absolute eulogies of =ir ?harles Adderley and 9r) 3oebuc-, how elo.uent, how suggesti*e are those few linesJ R8ur old Anglo"=a5on breed, the best in the whole worldJR ""how much that is harsh and ill"fa*ored there is in this bestJ 0ragg1 6f we are to tal- of ideal %erfection, of Rthe best in the whole world,R has any one reflected what a touch of grossness in our race, what an original short"coming in the more delicate s%iritual %erce%tions, is shown by the natural growth amongst us of such hideous names, ""2igginbottom, =tiggins, BuggJ 6n 6onia and Attica they were luc-ier in this res%ect than Rthe best race in the worldR+ by the 6lissus there was no /ragg, %oor thingJ And Rour unri*alled ha%%inessR+ ""what an element of

1--

grimness, bareness, and hideousness mi5es with it and blurs it+ the wor-house, the dismal 9a%%erly 2ills,"" how dismal those who ha*e seen them will remember+ ""the gloom, the smo-e, the cold, the strangled illegitimate childJ R6 as- you whether, the world o*er or in %ast history, there is anything li-e itFR Perha%s not, one is inclined to answer+ but at any rate, in that case, the world is *ery much to be %itied) And the final touch,""short, blea- and inhuman( 0ragg is in custody) 0he se5 lost in the confusion of our unri*alled ha%%iness+ or (shall 6 sayF$ the su%erfluous ?hristian name lo%%ed off by the straightforward *igor of our old Anglo"=a5on breedJ 0here is %rofit for the s%irit in such contrasts as this+ criticism ser*es the cause of %erfection by establishing them) By eluding sterile conflict, by refusing to remain in the s%here where alone narrow and relati*e conce%tions ha*e any worth and *alidity, criticism may diminish its momentary im%ortance, but only in this way has it a chance of gaining admittance for those wider and more %erfect conce%tions to which all its duty is really owed) N /here shall we find language innocent enough, how shall we ma-e the s%otless %urity of our intentions e*ident enough, to enable us to say to the %olitical 4nglishmen that the British ?onstitution itself, which, seen from the %ractical side, loo-s such a magnificent organ of %rogress and *irtue, seen from the s%eculati*e side, ""with its com%romises, its lo*e of facts, its horror of theory, its studied a*oidance of clear thoughts,"" that, seen from this side, our august ?onstitution sometimes loo-s, ""forgi*e me, shade of ;ord =omersJ"" a colossal machine for the manufacture of PhilistinesF N ?riticism must maintain its inde%endence of the %ractical s%irit and its aims) 4*en with well"meant efforts of the %ractical s%irit it must e5%ress dissatisfaction, if in the s%here of the ideal they seem im%o*erishing and limiting) 6t must not hurry on to the goal because of its %ractical im%ortance) 6t must be %atient, and -now how to wait+ and fle5ible, and -now how to attach itself to things and how to withdraw from them) 6t must be a%t to study and %raise elements that for the fulness of s%iritual %erfection are wanted, e*en though they belong to a %ower which in the %ractical s%here may be maleficent) 6t must be a%t to discern the s%iritual shortcomings or illusions of %owers that in the %ractical s%here may be beneficent) And this without any notion of fa*oring or inDuring, in the %ractical s%here, one %ower or the other+ without any notion of %laying off, in this s%here, one %ower against the other) N 8r when Protestantism, in *irtue of its su%%osed rational and intellectual origin, gi*es the law to criticism too magisterially, criticism may and must remind it that its %retensions, in this res%ect, are illusi*e and do it harm+ that the 3eformation was a moral rather than an intellectual e*ent+ that ;utherOs theory of grace no more e5actly reflects the mind of the s%irit than BossuetOs %hiloso%hy of history reflects it+ and that there is no more antecedent %robability of the Bisho% of 1urhamOs stoc- of ideas being

1-+

agreeable to %erfect reason than of Po%e Pius the 7inthOs) But criticism will not on that account forget the achie*ements of Protestantism in the %ractical and moral s%here+ nor that, e*en in the intellectual s%here, Protestantism, though in a blind and stumbling manner, carried forward the 3enascence, while ?atholicism threw itself *iolently across its %ath) N 6f 6 ha*e insisted so much on the course which criticism must ta-e where %olitics and religion are concerned, it is because, where these burning matters are in .uestion, it is most li-ely to go astray) 6 ha*e wished, abo*e all, to insist on the attitude which criticism should ado%t towards things in general+ on its right tone and tem%er of mind) But then comes another .uestion as to the subDect"matter which literary criticism should most see-) 2ere, in general, its course is determined for it by the idea which is the law of its being( the idea of a disinterested endea*or to learn and %ro%agate the best that is -nown and thought in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas) By the *ery nature of things, as 4ngland is not all the world, much of the best that is -nown and thought in the world cannot be of 4nglish growth, must be foreign+ by the nature of things, again, it is Dust this that we are least li-ely to -now, while 4nglish thought is streaming in u%on us from all sides, and ta-es e5cellent care that we shall not be ignorant of its e5istence) 0he 4nglish critic of literature, therefore, must dwell much on foreign thought, and with %articular heed on any %art of it, which, while significant and fruitful in itself, is for any reason s%ecially li-ely to esca%e him) Again, Dudging is often s%o-en of as the criticOs one business, and so in some sense it is+ but the Dudgment which almost insensibly forms itself in a fair and clear mind, along with fresh -nowledge, is the *aluable one+ and thus -nowledge, and e*er fresh -nowledge, must be the criticOs great concern for himself) And it is by communicating fresh -nowledge, and letting his own Dudgment %ass along with it,""but insensibly, and in the second %lace, not the first, as a sort of com%anion and clue, not as an abstract lawgi*er,""that the critic will generally do most good to his readers) =ometimes, no doubt, for the sa-e of establishing an authorOs %lace in literature, and his relation to a central standard (and if this is not done, how are we to get at our (est in the worldF$ criticism may ha*e to deal with a subDect"matter so familiar that fresh -nowledge is out of the .uestion, and then it must be all Dudgment+ an enunciation and detailed a%%lication of %rinci%les) 2ere the great safeguard is ne*er to let oneself become abstract, always to retain an intimate and li*ely consciousness of the truth of what one is saying, and, the moment this fails us, to be sure that something is wrong) =till under all circumstances, this mere Dudgment and a%%lication of %rinci%les is, in itself, not the most satisfactory wor- to the critic+ li-e mathematics, it is tautological, and cannot well gi*e us, li-e fresh learning, the sense of creati*e acti*ity) But sto%, some one will say+ all this tal- is of no %ractical use to us whate*er+ this criticism of yours is not what we ha*e in our minds when

1+0

we s%ea- of criticism+ when we s%ea- of critics and criticism, we mean critics and criticism of the current 4nglish literature of the day( when you offer to tell criticism its function, it is to this criticism that we e5%ect you to address yourself) 6 am sorry for it, for 6 am afraid 6 must disa%%oint these e5%ectations) 6 am bound by my own definition of criticism+ a disinterested endea&or to learn and propagate the (est that is %nown and thought in the world) 2ow much of current 4nglish literature comes into this Rbest that is -nown and thought in the worldRF 7ot *ery much 6 fear+ certainly less, at this moment, than of the current literature of Erance or ,ermany) /ell, then, am 6 to alter my definition of criticism, in order to meet the re.uirements of a number of %ractising 4nglish critics, who, after all, are free in their choice of a businessF 0hat would be ma-ing criticism lend itself Dust to one of those alien %ractical considerations, which, 6 ha*e said, are so fatal to it) 8ne may say, indeed, to those who ha*e to deal with the mass""so much better disregardedVof current 4nglish literature, that they may at all e*ents endea*or, in dealing with this, to try it, so far as they can, by the standard of the best that is -nown and thought in the world+ one may say, that to get anywhere near this standard, e*ery critic should try and %ossess one great literature, at least, besides his own+ and the more unli-e his own, the better) But, after all, the criticism 6 am really concerned with, ""the criticism which alone can much hel% us for the future, the criticism which, throughout 4uro%e, is at the %resent day meant, when so much stress is laid on the im%ortance of criticism and the critical s%irit,"" is a criticism which regards 4uro%e as being, for intellectual and s%iritual %ur%oses, one great confederation, bound to a Doint action and wor-ing to a common result+ and whose members ha*e, for their %ro%er outfit, a -nowledge of ,ree-, 3oman, and 4astern anti.uity, and of one another) =%ecial, local, and tem%orary ad*antages being %ut out of account, that modern nation will in the intellectual and s%iritual s%here ma-e most %rogress, which most thoroughly carries out this %rogram) And what is that but saying that we too, all of us, as indi*iduals, the more thoroughly we carry it out, shall ma-e the more %rogressF 0here is so much in*iting usJ""what are we to ta-eF what will nourish us in growth towards %erfectionF 0hat is the .uestion which, with the immense field of life and of literature lying before him, the critic has to answer+ for himself first, and afterwards for others) 6n this idea of the criticOs business the essays brought together in the following %ages ha*e had their origin+ in this idea, widely different as are their subDects, they ha*e, %erha%s, their unity) 6 conclude with what 6 said at the beginning( to ha*e the sense of creati*e acti*ity is the great ha%%iness and the great %roof of being ali*e, and it is not denied to criticism to ha*e it+ but then criticism must be sincere, sim%le, fle5ible, ardent, e*er widening its -nowledge) 0hen it may ha*e, in no contem%tible measure, a Doyful sense of creati*e acti*ity+ a sense which a man of insight and conscience will %refer to

1+1

what he might deri*e from a %oor, star*ed, fragmentary, inade.uate creation) And at some e%ochs no other creation is %ossible) =till, in full measure, the sense of creati*e acti*ity belongs only to genuine creation+ in literature we must ne*er forget that) But what true man of letters e*er can forget itF 6t is no such common matter for a gifted nature to come into %ossession of a current of true and li*ing ideas, and to %roduce amidst the ins%iration of them, that we are li-ely to underrate it) 0he e%ochs of Wschylus and =ha-es%eare ma-e us feel their %reXminence) 6n an e%och li-e those is, no doubt, the true life of literature+ there is the %romised land, towards which criticism can only bec-on) 0hat %romised land it will not be ours to enter, and we shall die in the wilderness( but to ha*e desired to enter it, to ha*e saluted it from afar, is already, %erha%s, the best distinction among contem%oraries+ it will certainly be the best title to esteem with %osterity)

1+2

2473I >A94= Erom The Art of *iction

LEictionM must ta-e itself seriously for the %ublic to ta-e it so) 0he old su%erstition about fiction being Rwic-edR has doubtless died out in 4ngland+ but the s%irit of it lingers in a certain obli.ue regard directed toward any story which does not more or less admit that it is only a Do-e) 4*en the most Docular no*el feels in some degree the weight of the %roscri%tion that was formerly directed against literary le*ity+ the Docularity does not always succeed in %assing for gra*ity) 6t is still e5%ected, though %erha%s %eo%le are ashamed to say it, that a %roduction which is after all only a Rma-e belie*eR (for what else is a RstoryRF$ shall be in some degree a%ologetic""shall renounce the %retension of attem%ting really to com%ete with life) 0his, of course, any sensible wide"awa-e story declines to do, for it .uic-ly %ercei*es that the tolerance granted to it on such a condition is only an attem%t to stifle it, disguised in the form of generosity) 0he old e*angelical hostility to the no*el, which was as e5%licit as it was narrow, and which regarded it as little less fa*ourable to our immortal %art than a stage"%lay, was in reality far less insulting) 0he only reason for the e5istence of a no*el is that it does com%ete with life) /hen it ceases to com%ete as the can*as of the %ainter com%etes, it will ha*e arri*ed at a *ery strange %ass) 6t is not e5%ected of the %icture that it will ma-e itself humble in order to be forgi*en+ and the analogy between the art of the %ainter and the art of the no*elist is, so far as 6 am able to see, com%lete) 0heir ins%iration is the same, their %rocess (allowing for the different .uality of the *ehicle$ is the same, their success is the same) 0hey may learn from each other, they may e5%lain and sustain each other) 0heir cause is the same, and the honour of one is the honour of another) Peculiarities of manner, of e5ecution, that corres%ond on either side, e5ist in each of them and contribute to their de*elo%ment) 0he 9ahometans thin- a %icture an unholy thing, but it is a long time since any ?hristian did, and it is therefore the more odd that in the ?hristian mind the traces (dissimulated though they may be$ of a sus%icion of the sister art should linger to this day) 0he only effectual way to lay it to rest is to em%hasiHe the analogy to which 6 Dust alluded""to insist on the fact that as the %icture is reality, so the no*el is history) 0hat is the only general descri%tion (which does it Dustice$ that we may gi*e the no*el) But history also is allowed to com%ete with life, as 6 say+ it is not, any more than %ainting, e5%ected to a%ologiHe) 0he subDect"matter of fiction is stored u% li-ewise in documents and records, and if it will not gi*e itself away, as they say in ?alifornia, it must s%ea- with assurance, with the tone of the historian) N 0o re%resent and illustrate the %ast, the actions of men, is the tas- of Lboth writer and historianM, and the only difference that 6 can see is, in %ro%ortion as he succeeds, to the honour of the no*elist, consisting as it does in his ha*ing more difficulty in collecting his e*idence, which is so far from being %urely literary) 6t seems to me to

1+"

gi*e him a great character, the fact that he has at once so much in common with the %hiloso%her and the %ainter+ this double analogy is a magnificent heritage) N 0he only obligation to which in ad*ance we may hold a no*el without incurring the accusation of being arbitrary, is that it be interesting) 0hat general res%onsibility rests u%on it, but it is the only one 6 can thin- of) 0he ways in which it is at liberty to accom%lish this result (of interesting us$ stri-e me as innumerable and such as can only suffer from being mar-ed out, or fenced in, by %rescri%tion) 0hey are as *arious as the tem%erament of man, and they are successful in %ro%ortion as they re*eal a %articular mind, different from others) A no*el is in its broadest definition a %ersonal im%ression of life+ that, to begin with, constitutes its *alue, which is greater or less according to the intensity of the im%ression) But there will be no intensity at all, and therefore no *alue, unless there is freedom to feel and say) 0he tracing of a line to be followed, of a tone to be ta-en, of a form to be filled out, is a limitation of that freedom and a su%%ression of the *ery thing that we are most curious about) 0he form, it seems to me, is to be a%%reciated after the fact+ then the authorOs choice has been made, his standard has been indicated+ then we can follow lines and directions and com%are tones) 0hen, in a word, we can enDoy one of the most charming of %leasures, we can estimate .uality, we can a%%ly the test of e5ecution) 0he e5ecution belongs to the author alone+ it is what is most %ersonal to him, and we measure him by that) 0he ad*antage, the lu5ury, as well as the torment and res%onsibility of the no*elist, is that there is no limit to what he may attem%t as an e5ecutant""no limit to his %ossible e5%eriments, efforts, disco*eries, successes) 2ere it is es%ecially that he wor-s, ste% by ste%, li-e his brother of the brush, of whom we may always say that he has %ainted his %icture in a manner best -nown to himself) 2is manner is his secret, not necessarily a deliberate one) 2e cannot disclose it, as a general thing, if he would+ he would be at a loss to teach it to others) 6 say this with a due recollection of ha*ing insisted on the community of method of the artist who %aints a %icture and the artist who writes a no*el) 0he %ainter is able to teach the rudiments of his %ractice, and it is %ossible, from the study of good wor- (granted the a%titude$, both to learn how to %aint and to learn how to write) Iet it remains true, without inDury to the rapprochement, that the literary artist would be obliged to say to his %u%il much more than the other, RAh, well, you must do it as you canJR 6t is a .uestion of degree, a matter of delicacy) 6f there are e5act sciences there are also e5act arts, and the grammar of %ainting is so much more definite that it ma-es the difference) N 6 cannot imagine com%osition e5isting in a series of bloc-s, nor concei*e, in any no*el worth discussing at all, of a %assage of descri%tion that is not in its intention narrati*e, a %assage of dialogue that is not in its intention descri%ti*e, a touch of truth of any sort that does not %arta-e

1+/

of the nature of incident, and an incident that deri*es its interest from any other source than the general and only source of the success of a wor- of art"that of being illustrati*e) A no*el is a li*ing thing, all one and continuous, li-e e*ery other organism, and in %ro%ortion as it li*es will it be found, 6 thin-, that in each of the %arts there is something of each of the other %arts) 0he critic who o*er the close te5ture of a finished worwill %retend to trace a geogra%hy of items will mar- some frontiers as artificial, 6 fear, as any that ha*e been -nown to history) 0here is an old" fashioned distinction between the no*el of character and the no*el of incident, which must ha*e cost many a smile to the intending romancer who was -een about his wor-) 6t a%%ears to me as little to the %oint as the e.ually celebrated distinction between the no*el and the romance" to answer as little to any reality) 0here are bad no*els and good no*els, as there are bad %ictures and good %ictures+ but that is the only distinction in which 6 see any meaning, and 6 can as little imagine s%ea-ing of a no*el of character as 6 can imagine s%ea-ing of a %icture of character) /hen one says %icture, one says of character, when one says no*el, one says of incident, and the terms may be trans%osed) /hat is character but the determination of incidentF /hat is incident but the illustration of characterF /hat is a %icture or a no*el that is not of characterF /hat else do we see- in it and find in itF 6t is an incident for a woman to stand u% with her hand resting on a table and loo- out at you in a certain way+ or if it be not an incident, 6 thin- it will be hard to say what it is) At the same time it is an e5%ression of character) 6f you say you donOt see it (character in that"allons donc1$ this is e5actly what the artist who has reasons of his own for thin-ing he does see it underta-es to show you) N 7othing, of course, will e*er ta-e the %lace of the good old fashion of Rli-ingR a wor- of art or not li-ing it+ the more im%ro*ed criticism will not abolish that %rimiti*e, that ultimate, test) 6 mention this to guard myself from the accusation of intimating that the idea, the subDect, of a no*el or a %icture, does not matter) 6t matters, to my sense, in the highest degree, and if 6 might %ut u% a %rayer it would be that artists should select none but the richest) N 9any %eo%le s%ea- of it as a factitious, artificial form, a %roduct of ingenuity, the business of which is to alter and arrange the things that surround us, to translate them into con*entional, traditional moulds) 0his, howe*er, is a *iew of the matter which carries us but a *ery short way, condemns the art to an eternal re%etition of a few familiar clich2s' cuts short its de*elo%ment, and leads us straight u% to a dead wall) ?atching the *ery note and tric-, the strange irregular rhythm of life, that is the attem%t whose strenuous force -ee%s Eiction u%on her feet) 6n %ro%ortion as in what she offers us we see life without rearrangement do we feel that we are touching the truth+ in %ro%ortion as we see it with rearrangement do we feel that we are being %ut off with a substitute, a

1+.

com%romise and con*ention) 6t is not uncommon to hear an e5traordinary assurance of remar- in regard to this matter of rearranging, which is often s%o-en of as if it were the last word of art) N Art is essentially selection, but it is a selection whose main care is to be ty%ical, to be inclusi*e) Eor many %eo%le art means rose"coloured windows, and selection means %ic-ing a bou.uet for 9rs) ,rundy) 0hey will tell you glibly that artistic considerations ha*e nothing to do with the disagreeable, with the ugly+ they will rattle off shallow common%laces about the %ro*ince of art and the limits of art, till you are mo*ed to some wonder in return as to the %ro*ince and the limits of ignorance) 6t a%%ears to me that no one can e*er ha*e made a seriously artistic attem%t without becoming conscious of an immense increase""a -ind of re*elation""of freedom) 8ne %ercei*es, in that case"by the light of a hea*enly ray"that the %ro*ince of art is all life, all feeling, all obser*ation, all *ision) N L45%erienceM is a sufficient answer to those who maintain that it must not touch the %ainful, who stic- into its di*ine unconscious bosom little %rohibitory inscri%tions on the end of stic-s, such as we see in %ublic gardens""R6t is forbidden to wal- on the grass+ it is forbidden to touch the flowers+ it is not allowed to introduce dogs, or to remain after dar-+ it is re.uested to -ee% to the right)R 0he young as%irant in the line of fiction, whom we continue to imagine, will do nothing without taste, for in that case his freedom would be of little use to him+ but the first ad*antage of his taste will be to re*eal to him the absurdity of the little stic-s and tic-ets) 6f he ha*e taste, 6 must add, of course he will ha*e ingenuity, and my disres%ectful reference to that .uality Dust now was not meant to im%ly that it is useless in fiction) But it is only a secondary aid+ the first is a *i*id sense of reality) N 6 cannot see what is meant by tal-ing as if there were a %art of a no*el which is the story and %art of it which for mystical reasons is not"" unless indeed the distinction be made in a sense in which it is difficult to su%%ose that anyone should attem%t to con*ey anything) R0he story,R if it re%resents anything, re%resents the subDect, the idea, the data of the no*el+ and there is surely no RschoolR N which urges that a no*el should be all treatment and no subDect) 0here must assuredly be something to treat+ e*ery school is intimately conscious of that) 0his sense of the story being the idea, the starting"%oint, of the no*el is the only one that 6 see in which it can be s%o-en of as something different from its organic whole+ and since, in %ro%ortion as the wor- is successful, the idea %ermeates and %enetrates it, informs and animates it, so that e*ery word and e*ery %unctuation"%oint contribute directly to the e5%ression, in that %ro%ortion do we lose our sense of the story being a blade which may be drawn more or less out of its sheath) 0he story and the no*el, the idea and the form, are the needle and thread, and 6 ne*er heard of a guild of tailors who recommended the use of the thread without the needle or the needle without the thread) N N6 ha*e left the .uestion of the morality of the no*el till the last, and at

1+2

the last 6 find 6 ha*e used u% my s%ace) 6t is a .uestion surrounded with difficulties, as witness the *ery first that meets us, in the form of a definite .uestion, on the threshold) Cagueness, in such a discussion, is fatal, and what is the meaning of your morality and your conscious moral %ur%oseF /ill you not define your terms and e5%lain how (a no*el being a %icture$ a %icture can be either moral or immoralF Iou wish to %aint a moral %icture or car*e a moral statue+ will you not tell us how you would set about itF /e are discussing the Art of Eiction+ .uestions of art are .uestions (in the widest sense$ of e5ecution+ .uestions of morality are .uite another affair, and will you not let us see how it is that you find it so easy to mi5 them u%F N 6n the 4nglish no*el (by which 6 mean the American as well$, more than in any other, there is a traditional difference between that which %eo%le -now and that which they agree to admit that they -now, that which they see and that which they s%ea- of, that which they feel to be a %art of life and that which they allow to enter into literature) 0here is the great difference, in short, between what they tal- of in con*ersation and what they tal- of in %rint) 0he essence of moral energy is to sur*ey the whole field, and 6 should directly re*erse 9r) BesantOs remar-, and say not that the 4nglish no*el has a %ur%ose, but that it has a diffidence) 0o what degree a %ur%ose in a wor- of art is a source of corru%tion 6 shall not attem%t to in.uire+ the one that seems to me least dangerous is the %ur%ose of ma-ing a %erfect wor-) As for our no*el, 6 may say, lastly, on this score, that, as we find it in 4ngland to"day, it stri-es me as addressed in a large degree to Ryoung %eo%le,R and that this in itself constitutes a %resum%tion that it will be rather shy) 0here are certain things which it is generally agreed not to discuss, not e*en to mention, before young %eo%le) 0hat is *ery well, but the absence of discussion is not a sym%tom of the moral %assion) 0he %ur%ose of the 4nglish no*el""Ra truly admirable thing, and a great cause for congratulationR""stri-es me, therefore, as rather negati*e)

1+,

0here is one %oint at which the moral sense and the artistic sense lie *ery near together+ that is, in the light of the *ery ob*ious truth that the dee%est .uality of a wor- of art will always be the .uality of the mind of the %roducer) 6n %ro%ortion as that mind is rich and noble will the no*el, the %icture, the statue, %arta-e of the substance of beauty and truth) 0o be constituted of such elements is, to my *ision, to ha*e %ur%ose enough) 7o good no*el will e*er %roceed from a su%erficial mind+ that seems to me an a5iom which, for the artist in fiction, will co*er all needful moral ground+ if the youthful as%irant ta-e it to heart it will illuminate for him many of the mysteries of R%ur%ose)R 0here are many other useful things that might be said to him, but 6 ha*e come to the end of my article, and can only touch them as 6 %ass) 0he critic in the Pall .all Ga3ette' whom 6 ha*e already .uoted, draws attention to the danger, in s%ea-ing of the art of fiction, of generaliHing) 0he danger that he has in mind is rather, 6 imagine, that of %articulariHing, for there are some com%rehensi*e remar-s which, in addition to those embodied in 9r) BesantOs suggesti*e lecture, might, without fear of misleading him, be addressed to the ingenuous student) 6 should remind him first of the magnificence of the form that is o%en to him, which offers to sight so few restrictions and such innumerable o%%ortunities) 0he other arts, in com%arison, a%%ear confined and ham%ered+ the *arious conditions under which they are e5ercised are so rigid and definite) But the only condition that 6 can thin- of attaching to the com%osition of the no*el is, as 6 ha*e already said, that it be interesting) 0his freedom is a s%lendid %ri*ilege, and the first lesson of the young no*elist is to learn to be worthy of it) R4nDoy it as it deser*es,R 6 should say to him+ Rta-e %ossession of it, e5%lore it to its utmost e5tent, re*eal it, reDoice in it) All life belongs to you, and donOt listen either to those who would shut you u% into corners of it and tell you that it is only here and there that art inhabits, or to those who would %ersuade you that this hea*enly messenger wings her way outside of life altogether, breathing a su%erfine air and turning away her head from the truth of things) 0here is no im%ression of life, no manner of seeing it and feeling it, to which the %lan of the no*elist may not offer a %lace+ you ha*e only to remember that talents so dissimilar as those of Ale5andre 1umas and >ane Austen, ?harles 1ic-ens and ,usta*e Elaubert, ha*e wor-ed in this field with e.ual glory) 1onOt thin- too much about o%timism and %essimism+ try and catch the colour of life itself) 6n Erance to"day we see a %rodigious effort (that of 4mile Qola, to whose solid and serious worno e5%lorer of the ca%acity of the no*el can allude without res%ect$, we see an e5traordinary effort *itiated by a s%irit of %essimism on a narrow basis) 9) Qola is magnificent, but he stri-es an 4nglish reader as ignorant+ he has an air of wor-ing in the dar-+ if he had as much light as energy his results would be of the highest *alue) As for the aberrations of a shallow o%timism, the ground (of 4nglish fiction es%ecially$ is strewn with their brittle %articles as with bro-en glass) 6f you must indulge in conclusions let them ha*e the taste of a wide -nowledge) 3emember

1+-

that your first duty is to be as com%lete as %ossible""to ma-e as %erfect a wor-) Be generous and delicate, and then, in the *ulgar %hrase, go inJR

.!yden W ite< 5Hettin% +ut of .istory<7 in 0obert "on D!>is 1983: 1/36130. *ns-er: W !t is )issin% is t e re(!tion bet-een t e te:t !nd - !t (ies outside of it C i.e.< istory< society< (!n%u!%e< %ender< $syc o!n!(ysis. iii & ere is ! ier!rc y in '(!to of t e >!rious $eo$(e in>o(>ed -it @no-(ed%e of t e -or(d: t e $ i(oso$ er $resu)!b(y co)es first A!(t ou% '(!to is not e:$(icit on t is $oint in t e ,epu#licB< !s e conte)$(!tes t e Ide!( 4or)s - ic !re beyond !nd $rior to t in%sG 2nd< t e one - o uses t in%s !nd @no-s t eir functionG t ird< t e one - o c!n )!@e t e)G t e !rtist co)es (!st. iv *: Socr!tes= )et od of en;uiry is ! di!(ectic )et od %ener!((y referred to !s induction. It is b!sed on di!(o%ue !nd (!r%e(y !$$(ied to et ic!( !nd e$iste)o(o%ic!( ;uestions. Its )!in $re)ise is t !t t e trut is (oc!ted in t e inter(ocutor=s )ind !nd - !t Socr!tes does is )ere(y dr!- it out. .o-e>er< )ore often t !n not is di!(o%ues end in aporia (! di(e))! - ic c!nnot be reso(>ed) !s Socr!tes de)onstr!tes is inter(ocutor=s t esis to be )ist!@en< -it out necess!ri(y $ro$osin% ! correct conc(usion inste!d. & e function of is di!(o%ues is t us r etoric!( ($ersu!si>e) r!t er t !n scientific. W en e does $roduce de)onstr!tion !nd definition< is )et od is c!((ed )!ieutics< fro) ! Hree@ -ord )e!nin% )id-ifery. v *: .enry 4ie(din%=s 'ref!ce to 9oseph Andre1s: vi *: 6t pictura poesis (L!t. in $oetry !s in $!intin% C i.e.< $oetry s ou(d re$resent< not te(()G to be%in ! story in medias res (L!t. in t e )idd(e of t in%s)< not a# o!o (L!t. fro) t e e%% C i.e.< fro) t e >ery be%innin%)< etc. vii *: *ccordin% to t is $rinci$(e< t e subIect )!tter (!nd es$eci!((y t e soci!( c(!ss of t e $rot!%onists) !nd t e (e>e( of diction of ! $oe) )ust confor) to t e st!tus of t e (iter!ry %enre on t e c(!ssic!( $oetic sc!(e< -it t e e$ic !nd tr!%edy !t t e to$< do-n t rou% co)edy< s!tire< $!stor!(< to t e s ort (yric !t t e (o-er re!c es. viii *: & e structure of Dryden=s *ssay is di!(o%ic or dr!)!tic< !nd t e de>ice e uses to >oice is o-n o$inions is t e persona or )!s@ of 2e!nder< one of t e s$e!@ers in t e di!(o%ue. 4or *sc !)=s !cce$t!tion of O$oesie= see *$$endi: ". iF *: Socr!tes. F *: * co)ic ro)!nce s ou(d ridicu(e !ffect!tion< - ic !s t-o ori%ins< >!nity !nd y$ocrisy. & e (!tter es$eci!((y is 4ie(din%=s t!r%et. Fi *s o$$osed to hedonism< - ic is t e doctrine of s$endin% one=s (ife in $ursuit of $ ysic!( $(e!sure. Fii *: & e 0o)!ntic tendency of est!b(is in% corres$ondences bet-een n!tur!( e(e)ents or $ eno)en! !nd u)!n fee(in%s< st!tes of )ind< or e>ents. & e ter) -!s coined by Qo n 0us@in. Fiii *: 2ort ro$ 4rye=s fi>e e(e>!tions of c !r!cters !re: 1. su$erior in @ind to bot )en !nd t e en>iron)ent of ot er )en ero M di>ine bein%G story M )yt < i.e. story !bout ! %od< outside t e nor)!( (iter!ry c!te%ories (33). 2. su$erior in de%ree to ot er )en !nd to is en>iron)ent ero of ro)!nce< u)!n bein%< but t e ordin!ry (!-s of n!ture !re sus$endedG (e%end< fo(@ t!(e< mErchen etc. (33). 3. su$erior in de%ree to ot er )en< but not to is n!tur!( en>iron)ent ero M (e!derG i% )i)etic )ode< of )ost e$ic !nd tr!%edy (3/). /. su$erior neit er to ot er )en nor to is en>iron)ent ero M one of usG (o- )i)etic )ode< of )ost co)edy !nd of re!(istic fictionG ero M not eroic (3/). 5. inferior in $o-er or inte((i%ence to ourse(>es ironic )odeG re!der fee(s e is or )i% t be in ! si)i(!r situ!tion< !s t e situ!tion is Iud%ed by t e nor)s of ! %re!ter freedo) (3/). Fiv *: & e writer< !ccordin% to ?oot < !s t e $ure(y )ec !nic!( function of $uttin% do-n t e story< !nd !s t erefore no i)$ort!nce in t is discussion. & e im%lied a"thor is t e one - o )!@es t e decisions !bout - !t story s ou(d be to(d !nd oit s ou(d be to(d so !s to !c ie>e t e effect desired by t e !ut orG is >oice is usu!((y su$re)e(y obIecti>e. & e narrator )!y be ! $!rtici$!nt in t e !ction of t e boo@ (1st $erson n!rr!tor)< or !n obIecti>e obser>er !nd recorder of t e $!rtici$!nt=s )ind (3 rd $erson n!rr!tor)< or e )!y be t e o)niscient -riter< ! %od6(i@e fi%ure )o>in% t e c !r!cters !round. & e characters< too< )!y !>e different $ositions in t e boo@: t ey c!n be !cti>e $!rtici$!nts< t ey )!y constitute so)et in% (i@e t e Hree@ c orus< co))entin% on t e c !r!cters= !ctions< or t ey )!y be - !t .enry Q!)es !d c!((ed 5ref(ectors<7 e($in% t e re!der %et ! %ri$ of - !t does not !$$en in front of i)8 er. Fv & is !(so< incident!((y< confir)s ?(!)ires= t eory of criticis)=s de$!rture fro) (iter!ture in $ursuit of bro!der fie(ds !fter t e Second Wor(d W!r. Fvi & ese !re t e res$ecti>e n!)es of t e t-o rou% (y si)i(!r critic!( trends in t e 9nited St!tes !nd t e 9nited Jin%do). 4or det!i(ed distinctions bet-een t e t-o< es$eci!((y in ter)s of t eir use of t e ter) O istoricis)<= see t e first ess!y in t e second section of t is boo@. Fvii Interre(!ted< !nd to ! cert!in e:tent t e source of 0e!der60es$onse< is 0ece$tion & eory. *ccordin% to Q.*. "uddon< t is is ! 5sc oo( of (iter!ry t eory - ic is !ssoci!ted $!rticu(!r(y -it t e 9ni>ersity of Jonst!nE !nd t e Iourn!( Poeti und Hermeneuti ($ub(is ed fro) 193/).7 #!in re$resent!ti>es: .!ns 0obert Q!uss< Wo(f%!n% Iser< J!r( einE Stier(e< St!n(ey 4is < etc. & ey !(( s$e!@ !bout re!din% !s !n !cti>ity< ! di!c ronic< $ro%ressi>e $rocess< !nd !n e:$erience< !n inter!ction< in >!ri!b(e $ro$ortions< bet-een te:t !nd re!der< in - ic t e te:t !ntici$!tes !nd -it in cert!in (i)its i)$oses t e sense t !t t e re!der !cti>e(y )!@es of t e te:t. *ccordin% to Qere)y .!-t orn< o-e>er< 0e!der60es$onse criticis) is not re!((y ! sc oo(< %i>en t e -ide >!riety of b!c@%rounds t !t its $ro)oters brin% to it C e.%. 1!%(eton is ! #!r:ist. Fviii See ?ri!n #c.!(e=s< 0obert ?. 0!y=s< !nd '!trici! W!u% =s res$ecti>e -or@ on $ost)odernis). FiF *: & e )yt ic!( )et od< ;uot!tion< e$i$ !ny etc. FF & e current de>e(o$)ents in t eory !re described !s -!>erin% bet-een t e t-o o(der !$$ro!c es: 1. & !t de>ised in t e e!r(y 19t century by 4riedric Sc (e%e(< !ccordin% to - ic criticis) is ! 5Oreconstructi>e= $rocess - ereby t e critic en !nces t e de>e(o$)ent of !rt7 !nd t us 5e(e>!tes criticis) !s ! %enre (!s .!rt)!n (!ter !(so c(!i)ed) to t e (e>e( of !rt7G 2. & !t of 4r!n@ Jer)ode< in - ic 5criticis) is on(y ! su$$(e)ent to !rt< !t best ! $!r!site dr!inin% !-!y t e (ifeb(ood of !rt7 !nd co)$(ete(y de$endent on it< -it no $rinci$(es !nd re;uire)ents of its o-n (D!>is 1983: 2). FFi 0i>@in !nd 0y!n< for inst!nce< s o- t !t 1979 -!s suc ! turnin% $oint. It -!s t e ye!r of t e $ub(ic!tion of Q.64. Lyot!rd=s The Post-%odern Condition& A ,eport on (no1ledge< t e boo@ t !t re$(!ced $oststructur!(is) -it $ost)odernis) !s t e c!tc -ord of t e !%e. It s ou(d !(so be noted t !t it -!s !t !bout t e s!)e ti)e t !t in "entr!( !nd 1!stern 1uro$e co))unis) -!s enterin% t e dec!de of )!Ior crisis t !t e>entu!ted in its co((!$se. & e ye!r 1989 -ou(d $er !$s !(so fit t e descri$tion of t e )o)ent of ! $!r!di%)!tic c !n%e in t e 1!st6"entr!( b(oc.
ii

FFii

*: #odernis) is ! cu(tur!( !nd !rtistic trend< be%innin% in Western 1uro$e !round t e turn of t e t-entiet century !nd (!stin% rou% (y unti( t e end of t e Second Wor(d W!r. #odernity is ! ;u!(ity t !t e>en 0en!iss!nce sc o(!rs c(!i)ed t ey $ossessed. 0e)e)ber t e O?!tt(e of t e *ncients !nd t e #oderns=D We usu!((y s$e!@ !bout t e O#odern *%e= be%innin% -it t e 0en!iss!nce C i.e.< -it .u)!nis). O#odern 1n%(is = be%!n to be s$o@en !t !bout t e s!)e ti)e. (?efore t !t< -e s$e!@ of O#edie>!( 1n%(is <= $receded by O+(d 1n%(is <= !nd< in $!r!di%)!tic ter)s< t e #idd(e *%es etc.) FFiii .!ss!n uses !()ost t e s!)e -ords to describe t e $ost6$ost)odern condition in 5?eyond 'ost)odernis)7 (2003). & e so(utions e $ro$oses t ere< too< !re not >ery different fro) t is e!r(ier conference t!(@. FFiv W!u% !d)its t !t 5AtB is is so)et in% of ! c!ric!ture of course. It is to $(!y $ost)odernis) !t one of its o-n f!>ourite %!)es of reductio ad a#surdum7 (305). FFv 0e)e)ber '(!to=s t ree 4und!)ent!( Ide!s: &rut < Hood< !nd ?e!uty< - ic tr!ns(!te into t e )!in s$ eres of u)!n interest< $ i(oso$ y< et ics< !nd !est etics< res$ecti>e(y< or< in (!y ter)s< $ i(oso$ y !nd science< re(i%ion8 )or!(ity !nd $o(itics< !nd !rt. FFvi See furt er definitions of ideo(o%y in t e first ess!y in t e second $!rt of t is >o(u)e< !s -e(( !s entry on #!r:ist "riticis) in Lecture ,I. FFvii 4redric Q!)eson=s Political 6nconscious !nd 5#et!co))ent!ry7 co)e to )ind. FFviii See S!c>!n ?erco>itc < 5*)eric! !s "!non !nd "onte:t<7 1983< es$. $. 105. FFiF ?y t e s!)e to@en< t e rebe((ion !%!inst t e o)niscient< o)ni$otent St!te si%n!((ed t e decision to resu)e $o(itic!( res$onsibi(ity C !nd t us< !n et ic!( c oice. FFF 2!tur!((y< )!r%in!(ity itse(f< (i@e ideo(o%y< )ust under%o const!nt redefinition in order to re)!in !n o$er!ti>e ter)< ot er-ise t ese disci$(ines (ose t eir recu$er!ti>e $rero%!ti>e.
FFFi

D!>is t en notes t e !rc ety$!( ;u!(ity of t e $!ttern< - ic is re$e!ted by +dysseus in re(!tion to is >!rious f!t er6 (L!ertes< ^eus) !nd son6 (&e(e)!@ os< suitors< suitors= re(!ti>es< is $eo$(e) fi%ures< !nd it ends in t e re!ffir)!tion of t e f!t er=s (^eus=) !ut ority< -it - o) e se!(s ! contr!ct of non6!%%ression !%!inst t e suitors= re(!ti>es< !nd of is o-n reinst!te)ent !s f!t er to &e(e)!@ os !nd is $eo$(e. #oreo>er< t e critic tr!ces in t is t e )ost fund!)ent!( $rinci$(es of !ny re(i%ion of s!crifice< in - ic t e 4!t er (5 e t !t is<7 Qe o>! C see 18) )ust c!st i)se(f into !not er< t e son< since 5+ne7 is t e inte%er< ! ne%!ti>e ;u!ntity< - ic c!nnot o(d )e!nin% e:ce$t in re(!tion to 5ot ers78 5)!ny.7 ?ut !s t e 5ot er7 (or 5t-o7 in !rit )etic) co)es into e:istence< ! t ird e(e)ent ine>it!b(y )ust be !((o-ed: t e re(!tions i$8 co)$!rison bet-een 5one7 !nd 5t-o.7 +ne suc $!r!di%)!tic series is +ne< #ind (t !t - ic @no-s t e +ne)< !nd Life (t !t - ic )!@es t e @no-in% $ossib(e !nd sust!ins it). *not er is t e *u%ustini!n &rinit!ri!nis): 4!t er< Son !nd (.o(y) S$irit8 Sou( (of #!n). 4urt er)ore< t e son=s e:istence )ust be re!sserted t rou% t e s!crifici!( de!t !nd resurrection< - ic is !(so ! re!ffir)!tion of t e f!t er=s !ut ority !nd %ood -i((. & e sou( (D!>is= 5-ise c i(d7 - o 5@no-s is o-n f!t er<7 ! $ r!se e borro-s fro) The Odyssey)< for - ose benefit t is conf(ict is $er$etu!((y re6en!cted< (!nd by - o) 5t e (!- )ust be reco%niEed fres (y Ae>ery ti)eB< !s if for t e first ti)e7 C 22) 5)edi!tes t e difference bet-een f!t er !nd son< ! difference t !t in turn deri>es fro) ! $re>ious (!c@ of conf(ict7 (20). & e 5(!c@ of conf(ict7 be(on%ed to Jronos= n!rcissistic -or(d of $erfect !r)ony< t e +ne t !t -!s !s yet uni;ue< - i(e ^eus introduces ! series of 5$roducti>e conf(icts t !t !((o- c i(dren to sur>i>e< !nd< in t is -!y< @no-(ed%e of t e f!t er !nd of t e -or(d co)es into bein%.7 & e 5-ise c i(d7 si%nifies 5! bindin% of conf(ict !nd unity (son !nd f!t er)< desire !nd (!-< in n!rr!ti>e ti)e.7 D!>is e)$ !siEes: 5unity is not bein% i)$osed on conf(ict (suc !n i)$osition L!c!n c!((s ! Osc!nd!(ous (ie=)< but is structur!((y $!rt !nd $!rce( of conf(ict7 (20). *nd !ice-!ersa. FFFii In t e 1$i(o%ue to The .ictional .ather< D!>is su))!ri(y dis)isses criti;ues co)in% fro) t e $ro>ince of #!r:is) !nd fe)inis). Fet e rec@ons -it H!y!tri S$i>!@< - o 5deft(y def(!tes AD!>is= 5$syc o!n!(ytic confront!tion -it n!rr!ti>e structure7B !s Ot e tro$o(o%ic!( or n!rr!to(o%ic!( cross !tc in% of ! te:t=5 resu(tin% )ere(y in ! $ro(ifer!tion of !((e%oriEin% n!rr!ti>es (183). & e f!ct t !t D!>is !cce$ts t e c !((en%e $osed by S$i>!@ !)ounts to ! reco%nition of t e (e%iti)!cy of t e ty$e of criti;ue s e re$resents. FFFiii 0ic !rd #!c@sey te((s t e !necdote of o-< !t t e Qo ns .o$@ins 5structur!(ist7 sy)$osiu) of 1933< - en L!c!n -!s to(d t !t !)on% t e $!rtici$!nts t ere -!s !(so ! youn% 4renc $ i(oso$ er n!)ed Q!c;ues Derrid!< 5! (itt(e c(oud< (i@e ! )!n=s !nd< $!ssed o>er t e #!ster=s f!ce7 (in D!>is 198/: 1003). In t e 5Li)in!( 2ote7 to t e s!)e >o(u)e< e !(so )entions Derrid! !)on% t ose - o resisted t e inf(uence of t e 1co(e freudienne de '!ris (8//). "e(i! ?ritton !(so )entions Derrid! !s t e t in@er - o !s e:$osed t e inconsistencies in L!c!n=s t in@in% )ost $ertinent(y (in Se(den 207)< !(t ou% e -!s f!r fro) i))une to is !c ie>e)ents (211). FFFiv 0!t er t !n re%!rd !rt !s ! for) of )i)esis< ?!rt es s!ys t !t 5t e -or@ of !rt is - !t )!n -rests fro) c !nceNso6c!((ed nonfi%ur!ti>e -or@s !re nonet e(ess to t e i% est de%ree -or@s of !rt< u)!n t ou% t bein% est!b(is ed not on t e !n!(o%y of co$ies !nd )ode(s but -it t e re%u(!rity of !sse)b(!%es7 (in D!>is 1983: 305). Fet )i)esis is not co)$(ete(y !bsent fro) !rtistic cre!ti>ity< Iust !s it is !(so $resent in t e structur!(ist !cti>ity: 5one )i% t s!y t !t structur!(is) is essenti!((y an acti!ity of imitation< - ic is !(so - y t ere is< strict(y s$e!@in%< no technical difference bet-een structur!(is) !s !n inte((ectu!( !cti>ity on t e one !nd !nd (iter!ture in $!rticu(!r< !rt in %ener!( on t e ot er: bot deri>e fro) ! mimesis b!sed not on t e !n!(o%y of subst!ncesNbut on t e !n!(o%y of functionsN7 (303). FFFv In 5'(!to=s ' !r)!cy<7 Derrid! e:$(!ins - !t e )e!ns by 5sy)$to)7: !n e:tern!( si%n< -it !(( t e Hree@ connot!tions of t e -ord 5sy)$to)7: 5!n e)$iric!(< contin%ent< su$erfici!( e>ent< %ener!((y ! f!(( or co((!$se< distin%uis in% itse(f (i@e !n inde: fro) - !te>er it is $ointin% to7 (in 0i>@in K 0y!n //0). FFFvi 'eter ?!rry records< -it cert!in reser>es< t !t 5$ost6structur!(is) often c(!i)s t !t it is )ore !n !ttitude of )ind t !n ! $r!ctic!( )et od of criticis).7 .e su%%ests t !t deconstruction 5c!n rou% (y be defined !s !$$(ied $ost6structur!(is)7 (70). +t er istori!ns of t e t eoretic!( $ eno)enon C !nd "uddon< - o) ?!rry ;uotes< is one of t e) C t!@e t e >ie- t !t deconstruction is ! f!ction of $ost6structur!(is). #ore often t !n not< !s in ?!rry< deconstruction is s!id to re$resent !n instru)ent!(is!tion of $oststructur!(is) in t e fie(d of (iter!ry studies. .o-e>er< t e distinction bet-een t e t-o ter)s !(on% disci$(in!ry (ines no (on%er obt!ins. In is (!ter ye!rs< Derrid! de$(oyed is deconstructi>e inter>ention in connection -it t e $ i(oso$ ic!( under$innin%s of $o(itics !nd et ics. *t t e s!)e ti)e< $oststructur!(is) !s e>o(>ed into ! )uc bro!der u)bre((! ter) t !t co>ers ! -ide r!n%e of t eoretic!( !$$ro!c es !nd of obIects of in>esti%!tion. It cou(d be !r%ued t erefore t !t it >ies for $ride of $(!ce -it $ost)odernis) !s t e c!tc -ord of our ti)es. FFFvii & e *)eric!n t!@e on t e be%innin% of deconstruction is %i>en by 0ic !rd 0orty< - o retros$ecti>e(y (oc!tes it in 1933< t e ye!r of t e Qo ns .o$@ins 9ni>ersity conference - ere Derrid! %!>e ! $!$er entit(ed 5Structure< Si%n !nd '(!y in t e Discourse of t e .u)!n Sciences.7 *ccordin% to 0orty< t e t ree )ost inf(uenti!( deconstructionist t in@ers !re Derrid!< 4ouc!u(t< !nd de

#!n (in Se(den 133). FFFviii See !(so de #!n in D!>is 1983: /39 !nd !s ;td. in Se(den 177. FFFiF Suc fine distinctions< o-e>er< !re not co))on. Derrid! i)se(f< in t e 5Letter to ! Q!$!nese 4riend<7 st!tes t !t is n!)e for is ne- !$$ro!c to te:ts -!s 5deconstruction7 !nd e:$(!ins its >!rious sources (27061)< - ere!s 5$oststructur!(is)7 -!s t e *)eric!n n!)e t !t !d bounced b!c@ !s ! resu(t of is co((!bor!tion -it t e F!(e Sc oo( !nd de #!n. Fet e does not $ursue t e issue of distinctions bet-een t e t-o beyond t e (e>e( of t e n!)e. Fl H!y!tri S$i>!@ -ou(d< I t in@< dis!%ree.